DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 12/21/2023. Acknowledgment is made with respect to a claim of priority to PCT Application PCT/EP2021/068626 filed on 7/6/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the sequential order is dependent on at least one of … amount of data locally obtainable by of each of the agent entities” (emphasis added) which should read as “wherein the sequential order is dependent on at least one of … amount of data locally obtainable by [[of]] each of the agent entities” (emphasis added) for better grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “obtaining configuring in terms of a computational task and a reporting condition from the server entity” (emphasis added) which should read as “obtaining [[configuring]] a configuration in terms of a computational task and a reporting condition from the server entity” (emphasis added) for better grammatical clarity. Dependent claims 17-20 depend on objected claim 16 and are also objected to by virtue of this dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the server entity during each iteration of the iterative learning process: provides a parameter vector of the computational problem to the agent entities” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the computation problem”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the server entity during each iteration of the iterative learning process: provides a parameter vector of the computational [[problem]] task to the agent entities” (emphasis added). Dependent claim 11 depends on indefinite claim 10 and is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) by virtue of this dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the reporting schedule”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein [[the]] a reporting schedule defines an order according to which agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task” (emphasis added). Dependent claims 17-20 depend on indefinite claim 16 and are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) by virtue of this dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
configuring the agent entities with a computational task and a reporting schedule, wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which the agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of configuring a task and schedule for agent entities, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally assign a task and schedule to be performed by specific entities at specific times.
wherein the agent entities are configured to, per each iteration of the learning process, base their computation of the computational task on any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities prior to when the agent entities themselves are scheduled to report their own computational results for that iteration: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of basing a result or observation or computation of a task on results of other entities prior to a scheduled reporting time, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally report the results or computation of a task before other entities report results.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “the method being performed by a server entity” and “performing the iterative learning process with the agent entities according to the reporting schedule and until a termination criterion is met”.
The additional element of “the method being performed by a server entity” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “performing the iterative learning process with the agent entities according to the reporting schedule and until a termination criterion is met” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “the method being performed by a server entity” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “performing the iterative learning process with the agent entities according to the reporting schedule and until a termination criterion is met” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Performing repetitive calculations”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which each of the agent entities is to report its own computational result” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which each of the agent entities is to receive any computational result of the computational task from any other of the agent entities” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to one at a time in a sequential order report their computational results of the computational task” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the sequential order is dependent on at least one of: channel quality between the server entity and each of the agent entities, channel quality between the agent entities themselves, geographical location of each of the agent entities, device information of each of the agent entities, device capability of each of the agent entities, amount of data locally obtainable by of each of the agent entities” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein whether or not the agent entities are to be configured to base their computation of the computational task on any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities is dependent on at least one of: channel quality between the agent entities themselves, geographical location of each of the agent entities, device information of each of the agent entities, amount of data locally obtainable by of each of the agent entities” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
weight said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities with a weighting factor when computing their own computational result: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of weighting results with a weighting factor, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally assign a weight of zero to unimportant results.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to report their computational results with a flag set when their own computational results have been computed as a function of said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
disregard any computational result of the computational task received from at least one specified agent entity: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of disregarding results, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally ignore certain information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
updates the parameter vector as a function of an aggregate of the obtained computational results when the aggregate of the obtained computational results for the iteration fails to satisfy the termination criterion: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of update a vector based on a failed termination criterion, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally update a vector.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional elements of “provides a parameter vector of the computational problem to the agent entities; obtains, according to the reporting schedule, computational results as a function of the parameter vector from the agent entities;” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the computational results are a function of the parameter vector for the iteration and of data locally obtained by the agent entity, and wherein the computational results from at least some of the agent entities are a function of computational result of the computational task received from any other agent entity for that iteration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 12
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
updating the reporting schedule for a next iteration of the iterative learning process based on the computational results received for a current iteration of the iterative learning process: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of updating a reporting schedule, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally update a schedule.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 13
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the computational task pertains to prediction of best secondary carrier frequencies based on measurements on a first carrier frequency to be used by user equipment in which the agent entities are provided” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 14
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the computational task pertains to compressing channel-state-information using an auto-encoder, wherein the server entity implements a decoder of the auto-encoder, and wherein each of the agent entities implements a respective encoder of the auto-encoder” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 15
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the server entity is provided in a network node, and each of the agent entities is provided in a respective user equipment” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 16
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the agent entity is configured to, per each iteration of the learning process, base its computation of the computational task on any computational result of the computational task received from any other agent entity prior to when the agent entity itself is scheduled to report its own computational result for that iteration: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of basing a result or observation or computation of a task on results of other entities prior to a scheduled reporting time, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally report the results or computation of a task before other entities report results.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “the method being performed by an agent entity”, “obtaining configuring in terms of a computational task and a reporting condition from the server entity, wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task”, and “performing the iterative learning process with the server entity until a termination criterion is met, wherein, as part of the iterative learning process, the agent entity reports a computational result for an iteration of the learning process according to the reporting schedule”.
The additional element of “the method being performed by an agent entity” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “obtaining configuring in terms of a computational task and a reporting condition from the server entity, wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task” and “performing the iterative learning process with the server entity until a termination criterion is met, wherein, as part of the iterative learning process, the agent entity reports a computational result for an iteration of the learning process according to the reporting schedule” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “the method being performed by an agent entity” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “obtaining configuring in terms of a computational task and a reporting condition from the server entity, wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task” and “performing the iterative learning process with the server entity until a termination criterion is met, wherein, as part of the iterative learning process, the agent entity reports a computational result for an iteration of the learning process according to the reporting schedule” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Performing repetitive calculations”, “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 17
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which the agent entity is to report its own computational result” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 18
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which the agent entity is to receive any computational result of the computational task from any other of the agent entities” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 19
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
weight said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities with a weighting factor when computing its own computational result: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of weighting results with a weighting factor, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally assign a weight of zero to unimportant results.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 20
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entity is configured to report their computational results with a flag set when their own computational results have been computed as a function of said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Liu et al., “Distributed Learning Systems with First-order Methods”, Apr. 12, 2021, arXiv:2104.05245v1, pp. 1-65, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses [a] method for configuring agent entities with a reporting schedule for reporting computational results during an iterative learning process, the method being performed by a server entity, the method comprising: (§4.1; the section discloses an asynchronous communication strategy between entities and a server for reporting computational results during an iterative learning process. Further, the section discloses “Worker wi waits until the transfer is finished, and repeats from step (1) immediately”, which discloses an iterative learning process; and Figure 4.2)
configuring the agent entities with a computational task (Figure 4.2; “the compute” action in the figure is the computational task) and a reporting schedule, (Figure 4.2; the figure discloses the asynchronous reporting schedule) wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which the agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task, and (Figure 4.2; the dark blue bars in the figures are broadly interpreted as the reporting segments for the agent entities)
wherein the agent entities are configured to, per each iteration of the learning process, base their computation of the computational task on any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities prior to when the agent entities themselves are scheduled to report their own computational results for that iteration; and (Figure 4.2; the figure discloses basing the computation of the computational task on a task received from other entities prior to the other entity’s scheduled reporting for the iteration; and §4.1; “Worker wi waits until the transfer is finished, and repeats from step (1) immediately”)
performing the iterative learning process with the agent entities according to the reporting schedule and until a termination criterion is met (§4.1; “convergence behavior”; and see generally §4.1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which each of the agent entities is to report its own computational result (Figure 4.2; see the dark blue bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which each of the agent entities is to receive any computational result of the computational task from any other of the agent entities (Figure 4.2; see the orange bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to one at a time in a sequential order report their computational results of the computational task (Figure 4.2; see the dark blue bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claims 1 and 4 are incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the sequential order is dependent on at least one of: channel quality between the server entity and each of the agent entities, channel quality between the agent entities themselves, geographical location of each of the agent entities, device information of each of the agent entities, device capability of each of the agent entities, amount of data locally obtainable by of each of the agent entities (Figure 4.2; see the dark blue bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure; as soon as one of the workers has finished computing and if the channel is empty, the data is transmitted).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein whether or not the agent entities are to be configured to base their computation of the computational task on any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities is dependent on at least one of: channel quality between the agent entities themselves, geographical location of each of the agent entities, device information of each of the agent entities, amount of data locally obtainable by of each of the agent entities (Figure 4.2; see the orange bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure; as soon as one of the workers has finished transmitting and if the channel is empty, the data is received by other workers).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to weight said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities with a weighting factor when computing their own computational result (§1.3.1; “each worker Mi holds a parameter vector wi, and they communicate to compute the sum of all parameter vectors: S = Σwi”).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the server entity during each iteration of the iterative learning process: provides a parameter vector of the computational problem to the agent entities obtains, according to the reporting schedule, computational results as a function of the parameter vector from the agent entities; and updates the parameter vector as a function of an aggregate of the obtained computational results when the aggregate of the obtained computational results for the iteration fails to satisfy the termination criterion (§4.1; “(1) At the beginning of each iteration, wi asks the parameter server for the global replica of the model. (2) Upon receiving this model, the worker wi uses it to compute the local gradient. (3) The worker then sends the local gradient to the parameter server, which then applies it to update the global model replica”).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 are incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the computational results are a function of the parameter vector for the iteration and of data locally obtained by the agent entity, and wherein the computational results from at least some of the agent entities are a function of computational result of the computational task received from any other agent entity for that iteration ((3) The worker then sends the local gradient to the parameter server, which then applies it to update the global model replica”; and Figure 4.2; see the orange bars after “Compute”).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the server entity is provided in a network node, and each of the agent entities is provided in a respective user equipment (Figure 1.5).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses [a] method for being configured by a server entity with a reporting condition for reporting computational results during an iterative learning process, the method being performed by an agent entity, the method comprising: (§4.1; the section discloses an asynchronous communication strategy between entities and a server for reporting computational results during an iterative learning process. Further, the section discloses “Worker wi waits until the transfer is finished, and repeats from step (1) immediately”, which discloses an iterative learning process; and Figure 4.2)
obtaining configuring in terms of a computational task (Figure 4.2; “the compute” action in the figure is the computational task) and a reporting condition from the server entity, (Figure 4.2; the figure discloses the asynchronous reporting schedule) wherein the reporting schedule defines an order according to which agent entities are to report computational results of the computational task (Figure 4.2; the dark blue bars in the figures are broadly interpreted as the reporting segments for the agent entities)
wherein the agent entity is configured to, per each iteration of the learning process, base its computation of the computational task on any computational result of the computational task received from any other agent entity prior to when the agent entity itself is scheduled to report its own computational result for that iteration; and (Figure 4.2; the figure discloses basing the computation of the computational task on a task received from other entities prior to the other entity’s scheduled reporting for the iteration; and §4.1; “Worker wi waits until the transfer is finished, and repeats from step (1) immediately”)
performing the iterative learning process with the server entity until a termination criterion is met, wherein, as part of the iterative learning process, the agent entity reports a computational result for an iteration of the learning process according to the reporting schedule (§4.1; “convergence behavior”; and see generally §4.1; and Figure 4.2).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which the agent entity is to report its own computational result (Figure 4.2; see the dark blue bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein the reporting schedule defines time-frequency resources in which the agent entity is to receive any computational result of the computational task from any other of the agent entities (Figure 4.2; see the orange bars after “Compute” which never overlap in time in the figure).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Liu further discloses wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entity is configured to weight said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities with a weighting factor when computing its own computational result (§1.3.1; “each worker Mi holds a parameter vector wi, and they communicate to compute the sum of all parameter vectors: S = Σwi”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Liu in view of Kerschbaum (US 20100091984 A1, hereinafter “Kerschbaum”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Kerschbaum discloses wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to report their computational results with a flag set when their own computational results have been computed as a function of said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities ([0004]; “Vector clocks of a distributed system may be described as values each of which may be increased by a process of the distributed system. In an example, a process may increase a value by a fixed value when an event is processed by the process. The values may be communicated with messages that are exchanged between processes. Furthermore, a process may update a value with a greater value or provide accessible values for a comparison with values accessible to a different process”, wherein the per-source incremented component/increased value is interpreted as the claimed flag set; and Figure 2).
Liu and Kerschbaum are analogous art because both are concerned with distributed computing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in distributed computing systems to combine the flag set reporting of Kerschbaum and the asynchronous, distributed computing method of Liu to yield to the predictable result of wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to report their computational results with a flag set when their own computational results have been computed as a function of said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities. The motivation for doing so would be to reveal processing details of a distributed system (Kerschbaum; [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Kerschbaum discloses wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entity is configured to report its computational result with a flag set when its own computational result has been computed as a function of said any computational result of the computational task received from any other of the agent entities ([0004]; “Vector clocks of a distributed system may be described as values each of which may be increased by a process of the distributed system. In an example, a process may increase a value by a fixed value when an event is processed by the process. The values may be communicated with messages that are exchanged between processes. Furthermore, a process may update a value with a greater value or provide accessible values for a comparison with values accessible to a different process”, wherein the per-source incremented component/increased value is interpreted as the claimed flag set; and Figure 2).
The motivation to combine Liu and Kerschbaum is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Liu in view of Pezzillo (US 20190370687 A1, hereinafter “Pezzillo”).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Pezzillo discloses wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to disregard any computational result of the computational task received from at least one specified agent entity ([0029]; “On the other hand, if the result is disapproved by the human expert, the output image-result pairing is ignored and/or corrected by the human expert”).
Liu and Pezzillo are analogous art because both are concerned with distributed computing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in distributed computing systems to combine disregarding of results of Pezzillo and the asynchronous, distributed computing method of Liu to yield to the predictable result of wherein, according to the reporting schedule, the agent entities are configured to disregard any computational result of the computational task received from at least one specified agent entity. The motivation for doing so would be to provide distributed feedback at edge computing devices (Pezzillo; [0004]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Liu in view of Yang et al. (Yang et al., “AGE-BASED SCHEDULING POLICY FOR FEDERATED LEARNING IN MOBILE EDGE NETWORKS”, Oct. 31, 2019, arXiv:1910.14648v1, pp. 1-6, hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Yang discloses updating the reporting schedule for a next iteration of the iterative learning process based on the computational results received for a current iteration of the iterative learning process (Algorithm 2; and §3.3)
Liu and Yang are analogous art because both are concerned with distributed computing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in distributed computing systems to combine reporting schedule updating of Yang and the asynchronous, distributed computing method of Liu to yield to the predictable result of updating the reporting schedule for a next iteration of the iterative learning process based on the computational results received for a current iteration of the iterative learning process. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the running efficiency of federated learning (Yang; Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Liu in view of Ryden et al. (Ryden et al., “Predicting strongest cell on secondary carrier using primary carrier data”, May 31, 2018, 2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW), pp. 137-142, hereinafter “Ryden”).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Ryden discloses wherein the computational task pertains to prediction of best secondary carrier frequencies based on measurements on a first carrier frequency to be used by user equipment in which the agent entities are provided (Abstract; “we propose a procedure of predicting the strongest cell of a secondary carrier, and the procedure is exemplified in a UE load-balancing use case. The prediction is based on only measurements on the primary carrier cells, avoiding costly inter-frequency measurements”; and Figures 1 and 2; and §II).
Liu and Ryden are analogous art because both are concerned with distributed computing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in distributed computing systems to combine the carrier frequency analysis of Ryden and the asynchronous, distributed computing method of Liu to yield to the predictable result of wherein the computational task pertains to prediction of best secondary carrier frequencies based on measurements on a first carrier frequency to be used by user equipment in which the agent entities are provided. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid costly inter-frequency measurements. (Ryden; Abstract).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Liu in view of Hussein (Hussein, “PRVNet: Variational Autoencoders for Massive MIMO CSI Feedback”, Nov. 10, 2020, 2022 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), pp. 1-7, hereinafter “Hussein”).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Hussein discloses wherein the computational task pertains to compressing channel-state-information using an auto-encoder, wherein the server entity implements a decoder of the auto-encoder, and wherein each of the agent entities implements a respective encoder of the auto-encoder (Abstract; and Figures 1 and 2; and §III).
Liu and Hussein are analogous art because both are concerned with distributed computing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in distributed computing systems to combine the autoencoder of Hussein and the asynchronous, distributed computing method of Liu to yield to the predictable result of wherein the computational task pertains to compressing channel-state-information using an auto-encoder, wherein the server entity implements a decoder of the auto-encoder, and wherein each of the agent entities implements a respective encoder of the auto-encoder. The motivation for doing so would be to outperform other neural network models and to be more robust against noise (Hussein; Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Predd et al., “Distributed Learning in Wireless Sensor Networks”, Mar. 26, 2005, arXiv:cs/0503072v1, pp. 1-10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-270-3169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights