Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN-202111386640.7, filed on November 22, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 11, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 1 is a method claim thus it falls into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding independent claim 1, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“receiving a first neural network parameter”
[Mental Process] – receiving the parameters can be done through hearing or looking which involves observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that is capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of paper and pen
“sending first indication information based on a correlation coefficient between the first neural network parameter and a second neural network parameter of the second communication apparatus being less than a first threshold, wherein the first indication information indicates that the second communication apparatus is to participate in training of a first neural network model of the first communication apparatus”
[Mental Process] – sending first indication based on a numerical result can be done verbally which involves observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that is capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of paper and pen
[Mathematical Calculations] – computing correlation coefficient to compare to a numerical standard, a threshold, requires to use mathematical recites to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first communication apparatus”, “the second communication apparatus”
The first/second communication apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“neural network parameter”
The first/second communication apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional elements [1,2] are considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations remain a mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent a mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 2 is a dependent claim of 1, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 2, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“the first neural network parameter is a model parameter of a first neural network or a gradient of the first neural network, and the second neural network parameter is a model parameter of a second neural network or a gradient of the second neural network”
[Mathematical Concept] – the data being sent or received represent specific mathematical constructs such as neural network model parameters or loss function gradients that constitutes a mere data limitation or the mathematical concept which recites to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claim 2 does not recite any additional elements other than abstract ideas, so it does not integrate into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 3 is a dependent claim of 1, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 3 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first neural network parameter is received on a cooperation discover resource, which is configured in sidelink configuration information”
Receiving information on a cooperation discover resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
This limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents insignificant extra-solution, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 4 is a dependent claim of 4, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 4, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“sending the second neural network parameter”
[Mental Process] – sending information like parameters can be done verbally which involves observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that is capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of paper and pen
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first communication apparatus”, “the second communication apparatus”
The first/second communication apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation remains a mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents a mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 5 is a dependent claim of 1, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 5 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites additional elements of
“receiving, by the second communication apparatus, a control signal from the first communication apparatus, wherein the control signal indicates a time-frequency resource, which is used by the second communication apparatus to send the second neural network parameter”
The first/second communication apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Receiving a control signal is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and a mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and a mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 6 is a dependent claim of 5 thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 6 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 5.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites additional elements of
“the control signal is received on a cooperation control resource, which is configured in the sidelink configuration information”
Receiving control signal that comprises information or data on a cooperation control resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
This limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 7
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 7 is an apparatus claim thus it falls into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding independent claim 7, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“a correlation coefficient between the first neural network parameter and a second neural network parameter of the apparatus being less than a first threshold”
[Mathematical Calculations] – computing correlation coefficient to compare to a numerical standard, a threshold, requires to use mathematical recites to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites additional elements of
“an interface, configured to cooperate with a processor to receive a first neural network parameter of a first communication apparatus, wherein the interface is further configured to send first indication information to the first communication apparatus wherein the first indication information indicates that the apparatus is to participate in training of a first neural network model of the first communication apparatus”
The interface, first/second apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Receiving/sending data is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is merely computer components that are just to store and execute code-based instructions which are considered a mere instruction to apply an exception and amount to storing and receiving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
The additional element [1c] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 8
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 8 is a dependent claim of 7, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 8, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“the first neural network parameter is a model parameter of a first neural network or a gradient of the first neural network, and the second neural network parameter is a model parameter of a second neural network or a gradient of the second neural network”
[Mathematical Concept] – the data being sent or received represent specific mathematical constructs such as neural network model parameters or loss function gradients that constitutes a mere data limitation or the mathematical concept which recites to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claim 8 does not recite any additional elements other than abstract ideas, so it does not integrate into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 9
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 9 is a dependent claim of 7, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 9 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first neural network parameter is received on a cooperation discover resource, which is configured in sidelink configuration information”
Receiving information on a cooperation discover resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
This limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 10 is a dependent claim of 7, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 10, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“send the second neural network parameter”
[Mental Process] – sending information like parameters can be done verbally which involves observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that is capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of paper and pen
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first communication apparatus”, “the second communication apparatus”
The first/second communication apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation remains a mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents a mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 11
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 11 is a dependent claim of 7, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 11 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites additional elements of
“receive a control signal from the first communication apparatus, wherein the control signal indicates a time-frequency resource, which is used by the apparatus to send the second neural network parameter”
The first communication apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Receiving a control signal is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and a mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 12
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 12 is a dependent claim of 11, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 12 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites additional elements of
“the control signal is received on a cooperation control resource, which is configured in the sidelink configuration information”
Receiving control signal that comprises information or data on a cooperation control resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
This limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 13
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 13 is a dependent claim of 7, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 13, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“perform synchronization with the first communication apparatus based on the synchronization signal”
[Mathematical Concept] – Performing synchronization requires mathematical algorithms, calculations, and signal processing operations for determining, comparing, and adjusting time/frequency offsets which recites to an abstract idea
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first communication apparatus”, “interface”
The first communication apparatus and the interface are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“Processor”
recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
“the interface is further configured to cooperate with the processor to receive a synchronization signal on a cooperation synchronization resource wherein the cooperation synchronization resource is configured in the sidelink configuration information”
Receiving synchronization signal that comprises information or data on a cooperation synchronization resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [2] is merely computer components that are just to store and execute code-based instructions which are considered a mere instruction to apply an exception and amount to storing and receiving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
The additional element [3] is an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 14
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 14 is an apparatus claim thus it falls into one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding independent claim 14, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“a correlation coefficient between the first neural network parameter and a second neural network parameter of the apparatus being less than a first threshold”
[Mathematical Calculations] – computing correlation coefficient to compare to a numerical standard, a threshold, requires to use mathematical recites to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites additional elements of
“a transceiver, configured to cooperate with a processor to send a first neural network parameter of the apparatus, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive first indication information from a second communication apparatus wherein the first indication information is sent by the second communication apparatus wherein the first indication information indicates that the second communication apparatus being to participate in training of a first neural network model of the apparatus”
The transceiver, first/second apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Receiving/sending data is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is merely computer components that are just to store and execute code-based instructions which are considered a mere instruction to apply an exception and amount to storing and receiving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
The additional element [1c] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 15
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 15 is a dependent claim of 14, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 15, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“the first neural network parameter is a model parameter of a first neural network or a gradient of the first neural network, and the second neural network parameter is a model parameter of a second neural network or a gradient of the second neural network”
[Mathematical Concept] – the data being sent or received represent specific mathematical constructs such as neural network model parameters or loss function gradients that constitutes a mere data limitation or the mathematical concept which recites to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claim 15 does not recite any additional elements other than abstract ideas, so it does not integrate into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 16
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 16 is a dependent claim of 14, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 16 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites additional elements of
“the first neural network parameter is sent on a cooperation discover resource, which is configured in sidelink configuration information”
Receiving information on a cooperation discover resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
This limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 17
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 17 is a dependent claim of 14, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
Regarding dependent claim 17, following limitations recite a judicial exception:
“update the first neural network model based on the second neural network parameter”
[Mathematical Concepts] – updating a neural network model based on received parameters requires mathematical algorithms, matrix calculations, and weight/gradient update operations, which recite to an abstract idea
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites additional elements of
“the transceiver is further configured to cooperate with the processor receive the second neural network parameter from the second communication apparatus”
The transceiver, the second communication apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Receiving data over the network using the transceiver is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is merely computer components that are just to store and execute code-based instructions which are considered a mere instruction to apply an exception and amount to storing and receiving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
The additional element [1c] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 18
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 18 is a dependent claim of 14, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 18 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites additional elements of
“the transceiver is further configured to send a control signal to the second communication apparatus, wherein the control signal indicates a time-frequency resource, which is used by the second communication apparatus to send the second neural network parameter”
The transceiver and the second communication apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Sending a control signal is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and a mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 19
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 19 is a dependent claim of 18, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 19 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 18.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites additional elements of
“the control signal is sent on a cooperation control resource, and the cooperation control resource is configured in the sidelink configuration information”
Sending control signal that comprises information or data on a cooperation control resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1] is considered an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
This limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 20
Step 1 – whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2016.03
Claim 20 is a dependent claim of 14, thus it falls within the same category of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 – whether the claim recites a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.
As Claim 20 does not have any abstract idea by itself, thus uses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2 – whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites additional elements of
“the transceiver is further configured to send a synchronization signal on a cooperation synchronization resource, which is configured in the sidelink configuration information”
The transceiver is recited at a high level of generality and is merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Sending synchronization signal that comprises information or data on a synchronization control resource is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
[Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than automate the mental processes that a person could perform, using computer components as a tool, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application.]
Step 2B – whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? I.e. Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea?
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the additional element [1a] is considered a mere instruction to apply an exception to the generic computer components or machine-learning components that simply run mathematical calculations and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element [1b] is an insignificant extra solution activity and at best the equivalent of a mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II)
These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instruction to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (Pezeshki), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US-2022/0180251-A1, filed in 12/03/2020, in view of Tang et al. (Tang), Non-Patent Literature, “FedGP: Correlation-Based Active Client Selection Strategy for Heterogeneous Federated Learning”, published in 08/25/2021, Pages: 19.
As to independent Claim 1,
Pezeshki teaches a model training method, comprising:
receiving, by a second communication apparatus, a first neural network parameter of a first communication apparatus (
Pezeshki, Pg19, Claim1, Line1-8, "A first user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the memory and the one or more processors configured to: receive a sidelink communication that includes a first local update associated with a machine learning component"
Pg3, Paragraph33, Lines7-15, "a local update may include the locally updated machine learning component ... a set of gradients associated with a loss function... a set of parameters (e.g., neural network weights) corresponding to the locally updated machine learning component"
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines1-3, "As shown by reference number 645, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive, the first local update"
wherein Pezeshki explicitly discloses user equipment 605 and 610 (the corresponding first and second communication apparatus) which one of them receives the machine learning components including parameters from the another); and
sending, by the second communication apparatus, first indication information to the first communication apparatus, wherein the first indication information indicates that the second communication apparatus is to participate in training of a first neural network model of the first communication apparatus (
Pezeshki, Pg10, Paragraph100, Lines1-12, "As shown by reference number 635, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive , a request for local update uploading assistance (shown as an “assistance request")… In some aspects, the request may include a request to perform an aggregation of the first local update and the second local update. As shown by reference number 640, the UE 610 may transmit, and the UE 605 may receive, an assistance confirmation"
Pg10, Paragraph98, Lines5-7, "The federated learning participant indication may identify one or more UEs of a set of UEs participating in a federated learning round"
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines11-13, "In some aspects, the UE 605 may transmit an assistance notification to the base station 615 that indicates that the UE 605 is sending the first local update to the UE 610"
wherein Pezeshki teaches transmitting assistance confirmation/notification and federated learning participant indication, which together establish a cohesive protocol where a secondary device explicitly communicates its status, acceptance, and active role in performing local model updates and aggregation for a given training round, which explicitly informs the primary device that the secondary apparatus is participating in the model training process.)
However, Pezeshki does not explicitly teach (Highlighted part)
first indication information to the first communication apparatus based on a correlation coefficient between the first neural network parameter and a second neural network parameter of the second communication apparatus being less than a first threshold
In the same field of endeavor, Tang teaches this (
Tang, Pg7, Lemma3,
PNG
media_image1.png
129
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pg7, Paragraph3, Lines3-7, "...the selection of k' does not only consider its correlations with other clients (r_ik'), but also prefers the clients that have small correlations r_k1k' with the previous selected client k1. This criterion penalizes selection redundancy and leads to a client selection with diverse datasets, which makes the training process more stable and robust"
Wherein Tang explicitly teaches a correlation-based client selection strategy that penalizes redundant client selection by preferring candidate clients with low correlation coefficients relative to previously selected clients. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the claimed “first threshold” is not limited to a fixed numerical constant and encompasses any relative limit, cut-off boundary, or comparison criterion used to select or qualify a participant based on correlation. Tang’s selection metric evaluates candidate clients against a relative correlation cutoff where candidates with smaller correlation coefficients maximize the objective function and are selected to participate, rendering it functionally equivalent to the claimed invention’s selecting/indicating participation based on the correlation coefficient being less than a threshold. To the extent that Tang’s selection rule is viewed as an optimization function rather than an explicit numerical threshold comparison, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement Tang’s low-correlation selection criterion using an explicit numerical threshold (e.g., initiating participation signaling when r < threshold) as a simple design choice/change to make the selection more static.
Pezeshki and Tang are analogous to the claimed invention as they are from the same field of endeavor of distributed machine learning and federated learning model training in wireless communication networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art (POSITA), before the effective filing date, to combine the sidelink-assisted federated learning framework and local update aggregation scheme of Pezeshki with the correlation-based client participation and selection strategy of Tang. The motivation is taught by Tang (Tang, Pg2, Paragraph1, Lines7-8, "an appropriate client selection strategy can alleviate the accuracy deterioration caused by heterogeneity and boost the convergence of FL"), establishing that applying parameter/gradient correlation filtering determines whether a device's update significantly contributes to global model convergence before participating in training or transmitting parameters. Furthermore, when integrating Tang's correlation-filtering strategy into Pezeshki's decentralized, peer-to-peer sidelink architecture, migrating the correlation evaluation and threshold comparison logic to the receiving secondary UE constitutes an obvious design choice and optimization to a POSITA. Performing correlation comparison locally on the receiving apparatus prior to parameter transmission offloads central processing overhead, avoids unnecessary transmission of high-dimensional neural network parameters over the air when correlation exceeds the threshold, and prevents redundant model updates. Consequently, this combination optimizes client selection under non-IID(independent and identical)/heterogenous data distributions, accelerates model convergence, and drastically reduces wireless signaling overhead and power consumption across sidelink and uplink transmissions.
As to dependent Claim 2,
The combination of Pezeshki and Tang teaches, as mentioned above, all the limitations of Claim 1. It teaches a model training method comprising receiving a first neural network parameters and sending indication information to participate in model training based on a correlation coefficient between neural network parameters being less than a first threshold.
Pezeshki further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the first neural network parameter is a model parameter of a first neural network or a gradient of the first neural network, and the second neural network parameter is a model parameter of a second neural network or a gradient of the second neural network (
Pezeshki, Pg3, Paragraph33, Lines7-15, "a local update may include the locally updated machine learning component ... a set of gradients associated with a loss function... a set of parameters (e.g., neural network weights) corresponding to the locally updated machine learning component"
Pg9, Paragraph89, Lines6-12, "In some aspects, the update may include an updated set of model parameters w^(n), a difference between the updated set of model parameters w^(n) and a prior set of model parameters w^(n-1), the set of gradients gk^(n), an updated machine learning component (e.g., an updated neural network model), and/or the like"
Pg10, Paragraph99, Lines9-11, "The first and/or second local updates may include at least one gradient of a respective loss function associated with the machine learning component"
Pg19, Claim3, "The first UE of claim 1, wherein the memory and the one or more processors, when receiving the sidelink communication, are configured to receive the sidelink communication from a second UE , and wherein the memory and the one or more processors are further configured to receive the second local update from a third UE"
where Pezeshki explicitly teaches that the local update exchanged between devices, the first UE and the second or third UE (the corresponding first and second neural networks) contains parameter values, neural network weights, and an updated set of model parameters.)
As to dependent Claim 3,
The combination of Pezeshki and Tang teaches, as mentioned above, all the limitations of Claim 1. It teaches a model training method comprising receiving a first neural network parameters and sending indication information to participate in model training based on a correlation coefficient between neural network parameters being less than a first threshold.
Pezeshki further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the first neural network parameter is received on a cooperation discover resource, which is configured in sidelink configuration information (
Pezeshki, Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines3-10, "The UE 605 may transmit the first local update by transmitting a sidelink communication that includes the first local update... In some aspects, the sidelink communication may be carried on at least one of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), or a combination thereof"
Pg7, Paragraph72, Lines14-20, "For example , the PSCCH 315 may carry sidelink control information (SCI) 330, which may indicate various control information used for sidelink communications, such as one or more resources (e.g., time resource , frequency resources, spatial resources, and/or the like) where a transport block (TB) 335 may be carried on the PSSCH 320"
Pg7, Paragraph73, Lines1-5, "In some aspects, the one or more sidelink channels 310 may use resource pools. For example, a scheduling assignment ( e.g. , included in SCI 330 ) may be transmitted in sub-channels using specific resource blocks (RBs) across time"
Wherein Pezeshki discloses receiving a local update (which contains neural network parameters and/or gradients) over sidelink channels (PSCCH/PSSCH) utilizing specific time-frequency resources and resource pools configured via Sidelink Control Information (SCI). The reception of machine learning updates over PSCCH/PSSCH resources defined by sidelink resource pools and SCI constitutes the functional and structural equivalent of receiving neural network parameters on a cooperation discover resource configured in sidelink configuration information.)
As to dependent Claim 4,
The combination of Pezeshki and Tang teaches, as mentioned above, all the limitations of Claim 1. It teaches a model training method comprising receiving a first neural network parameters and sending indication information to participate in model training based on a correlation coefficient between neural network parameters being less than a first threshold.
Pezeshki further teaches the method according to claim 1,
sending, by the second communication apparatus, the second neural network parameter to the first communication apparatus (
Pezeshki, Pg10, Paragraph100, Lines1-12, "As shown by reference number 635 , the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive , a request for local update uploading assistance (shown as an “assistance request")… In some aspects, the request may include a request to perform an aggregation of the first local update and the second local update. As shown by reference number 640, the UE 610 may transmit, and the UE 605 may receive, an assistance confirmation"
Pg10, Paragraph98, Lines5-7, "The federated learning participant indication may identify one or more UEs of a set of UEs participating in a federated learning round"
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines11-13, "In some aspects , the UE 605 may transmit an assistance notification to the base station 615 that indicates that the UE 605 is sending the first local update to the UE 610"
Pg9, Paragraph89, Lines6-12, "In some aspects, the update may include an updated set of model parameters w^(n), a difference between the updated set of model parameters w^(n) and a prior set of model parameters w^(n-1), the set of gradients gk^(n), an updated machine learning component (e.g., an updated neural network model), and/or the like"
Pg10, Paragraph99, Lines9-11, "The first and/or second local updates may include at least one gradient of a respective loss function associated with the machine learning component"
Pg19, Claim3, "The first UE of claim 1 , wherein the memory and the one or more processors, when receiving the sidelink communication, are configured to receive the sidelink communication from a second UE , and wherein the memory and the one or more processors are further configured to receive the second local update from a third UE"
wherein Pezeshki explicitly teaches sending the parameters, weights, or gradients to the second or third UE for the aggregated update. As the selection criteria disclosed by Tang above is combined with Pezeshki's transmitting the model's information, it is functionally equivalent to the claimed invention.)
However, Pezeshki does not explicitly teach
wherein based on the correlation coefficient being less than the first threshold
In the same field of endeavor, Tang teaches this (
Tang, Pg7, Lemma3,
PNG
media_image1.png
129
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pg7, Paragraph3, Lines3-7, "...the selection of k' does not only consider its correlations with other clients (r_ik'), but also prefers the clients that have small correlations r_k1k' with the previous selected client k1. This criterion penalizes selection redundancy and leads to a client selection with diverse datasets, which makes the training process more stable and robust"
As mentioned in Claim1, Tang discloses selecting strategy based on the correlation coefficient, specifically preferring clients with small coefficients. This establishes an explicit selection preference for candidate clients whose correlation coefficient remains below a similarity threshold.)
Pezeshki and Tang are analogous to the claimed invention as they are from the same field of endeavor of distributed machine learning and federated learning model training in wireless communication networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art (POSITA), before the effective filing date, to combine the sidelink-assisted federated learning framework and local update aggregation scheme of Pezeshki with the correlation-based client participation and selection strategy of Tang. The motivation is taught by Tang (Tang, Pg2, Paragraph1, Lines7-8, "an appropriate client selection strategy can alleviate the accuracy deterioration caused by heterogeneity and boost the convergence of FL"), establishing that applying parameter/gradient correlation filtering determines whether a device's update significantly contributes to global model convergence before participating in training or transmitting parameters. Furthermore, when integrating Tang's correlation-filtering strategy into Pezeshki's decentralized, peer-to-peer sidelink architecture, migrating the correlation evaluation and threshold comparison logic to the receiving secondary UE constitutes an obvious design choice and optimization to a POSITA. Performing correlation comparison locally on the receiving apparatus prior to parameter transmission offloads central processing overhead, avoids unnecessary transmission of high-dimensional neural network parameters over the air when correlation exceeds the threshold, and prevents redundant model updates. Consequently, this combination optimizes client selection under non-IID(independent and identical)/heterogenous data distributions, accelerates model convergence, and drastically reduces wireless signaling overhead and power consumption across sidelink and uplink transmissions.
As to dependent Claim 5,
The combination of Pezeshki and Tang teaches, as mentioned above, all the limitations of Claim 1. It teaches a model training method comprising receiving a first neural network parameters and sending indication information to participate in model training based on a correlation coefficient between neural network parameters being less than a first threshold.
Pezeshki further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the second communication apparatus, a control signal from the first communication apparatus, wherein the control signal indicates a time-frequency resource, which is used by the second communication apparatus to send the second neural network parameter (
Pezeshki, Pg7, Paragraph72, Lines14-20, "For example , the PSCCH 315 may carry sidelink control information (SCI) 330, which may indicate various control information used for sidelink communications, such as one or more resources (e.g., time resource , frequency resources, spatial resources, and/or the like) where a transport block (TB) 335 may be carried on the PSSCH 320"
Pg8, Paragraph76, Lines1-8, "In the transmission mode where resource selection and/or scheduling is performed by a UE 305, the UE 305 may generate sidelink grants, and may transmit the grants in SCI 330. A sidelink grant may indicate, for example, one or more parameters (e.g., transmission parameters) to be used for an upcoming sidelink transmission, such as one or more resource blocks to be used for the upcoming sidelink transmission on the PSSCH 320"
Pg10, Paragraph100, lines1-2, “As shown by reference number 635, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive…”
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines1-10, " As shown by reference number 645, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive… The UE 605 may transmit the first local update by transmitting a sidelink communication that includes the first local update... In some aspects, the sidelink communication may be carried on at least one of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), or a combination thereof"
wherein Pezeshki explicitly teaches a sidelink control mechanism where the first communication apparatus (corresponding to first UE 605) generates and transmits control signaling, such as Sidelink Control Information (SCI) or a sidelink grant over the Physical Sidelink Control Channel (PSCCH), to the second communication apparatus (corresponding to second UE 610). This control signaling specifically designates and allocates time-frequency resources (e.g., resource blocks across sub-channels) on the Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH) to be used by the second UE 610 for its upcoming sidelink transmission. This establishes that UE 610 utilizes these allocated time-frequency resources indicated by UE 605’s control signal to transmit its local machine learning update back to UE 605 for aggregation, rendering it functionally equivalent to the claimed invention.)
As to dependent Claim 6,
The combination of Pezeshki and Tang teaches, as mentioned above, all the limitations of Claim 5. It teaches about the first communication apparatus sending control signals such as SCI or a sidelink grant over PSCCH to the second communication apparatus to allocate time-frequency resources to be used by the second apparatus.
Pezeshki further teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the control signal is received on a cooperation control resource, which is configured in the sidelink configuration information (
Pezeshki, Pg7, Paragraph72, Lines5-10, "The PSCCH 315 may be used to communicate control information, similar to a physical downlink control channel ( PDCCH ) and / or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) used for cellular communications with a base station 110 via an access link or an access channel"
Pg7, Paragraph73, Lines1-5, "In some aspects, the one or more sidelink channels 310 may use resource pools. For example, a scheduling assignment (e.g., included in SCI 330 ) may be transmitted in sub-channels using specific resource blocks (RBs) across time"
Pg8, Paragraph76, Lines1-4, "In the transmission mode where resource selection and/or scheduling is performed by a UE 305, the UE 305 may generate sidelink grants, and may transmit the grants in SCI 330"
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines7-10, "In some aspects, the sidelink communication may be carried on at least one of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), or a combination thereof"
Wherein Pezeshki explicitly discloses that sidelink control signals (e.g., scheduling assignments and sidelink grants in SCI) are transmitted and received over a PSCCH allocated within pre-configured sidelink resource pools. Because the PSCCH represents a dedicated control channel specifically designated for communicating resource allocation signaling within configured sidelink resource pools, receiving the control signal on PSCCH within these resource pools, rendering it functionally equivalent to the claimed invention.)
As to independent Claim 7,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 1. Specifically, Pezeshki discloses a communication apparatus (UE 610) comprising an interface configured to cooperate with a processor to receive from a first communication apparatus (UE 605), and to send first indication information based on the correlation comparison logic taught by Tang and modified as in Claim1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 8,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 2 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 9,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 3 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 10,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 4 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 11,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 5 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 12,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 6 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to independent Claim 14,
Pezeshki teaches a communication apparatus, comprising:
a transceiver, configured to cooperate with a processor to send a first neural network parameter of the apparatus, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive first indication information from a second communication apparatus; (
Pezeshki, Pg19, Claim14, “The UE of claim 13, further comprising a transceiver, wherein the memory and the one or more processors are further configured to receive, using the transceiver, a federated learning participant indication that identifies the additional UE as a UE that is participating in a federated learning round for training the machine learning component”
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines3-10, "The UE 605 may transmit the first local update by transmitting a sidelink communication that includes the first local update
Pg3, Paragraph33, Lines7-15, "a local update may include the locally updated machine learning component ... a set of gradients associated with a loss function... a set of parameters (e.g., neural network weights) corresponding to the locally updated machine learning component"
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines1-3, "As shown by reference number 645, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive, the first local update"
Wherein Pezeshki explicitly discloses the UE 605 comprising transceiver transmitting local update that includes machine learning components such as neural network parameters of UE 605, rendering it functionally equivalent to the claimed invention)
wherein the first indication information indicates that the second communication apparatus being to participate in training of a first neural network model of the apparatus (
Pezeshki, Pg19, Claim14, “The UE of claim 13, further comprising a transceiver, wherein the memory and the one or more processors are further configured to receive, using the transceiver, a federated learning participant indication that identifies the additional UE as a UE that is participating in a federated learning round for training the machine learning component”
Pezeshki, Pg10, Paragraph100, Lines1-12, "As shown by reference number 635, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive , a request for local update uploading assistance (shown as an “assistance request")… In some aspects, the request may include a request to perform an aggregation of the first local update and the second local update. As shown by reference number 640, the UE 610 may transmit, and the UE 605 may receive, an assistance confirmation"
Pg10, Paragraph98, Lines5-7, "The federated learning participant indication may identify one or more UEs of a set of UEs participating in a federated learning round"
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines11-13, "In some aspects, the UE 605 may transmit an assistance notification to the base station 615 that indicates that the UE 605 is sending the first local update to the UE 610"
Wherein Pezeshki explicitly teaches the indication information is sent by the UE 610 (corresponding second communication apparatus) to UE 605 that the UE 610 is participating in the training for the round.)
However, Pezeshki does not explicitly teach (Highlighted part)
wherein the first indication information is sent by the second communication apparatus based on a correlation coefficient between the first neural network parameter and a second neural network parameter of the second communication apparatus is less than a first threshold
In the same field of endeavor, Tang teaches this (
Tang, Pg7, Lemma3,
PNG
media_image1.png
129
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pg7, Paragraph3, Lines3-7, "...the selection of k' does not only consider its correlations with other clients (r_ik'), but also prefers the clients that have small correlations r_k1k' with the previous selected client k1. This criterion penalizes selection redundancy and leads to a client selection with diverse datasets, which makes the training process more stable and robust"
Wherein Tang explicitly teaches a correlation-based client selection strategy that penalizes redundant client selection by preferring candidate clients with low correlation coefficients relative to previously selected clients. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the claimed “first threshold” is not limited to a fixed numerical constant and encompasses any relative limit, cut-off boundary, or comparison criterion used to select or qualify a participant based on correlation. Tang’s selection metric evaluates candidate clients against a relative correlation cutoff where candidates with smaller correlation coefficients maximize the objective function and are selected to participate, rendering it functionally equivalent to the claimed invention’s selecting/indicating participation based on the correlation coefficient being less than a threshold. To the extent that Tang’s selection rule is viewed as an optimization function rather than an explicit numerical threshold comparison, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement Tang’s low-correlation selection criterion using an explicit numerical threshold (e.g., initiating participation signaling when r < threshold) as a simple design choice/change to make the selection more static.
Pezeshki and Tang are analogous to the claimed invention as they are from the same field of endeavor of distributed machine learning and federated learning model training in wireless communication networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art (POSITA), before the effective filing date, to combine the sidelink-assisted federated learning framework and local update aggregation scheme of Pezeshki with the correlation-based client participation and selection strategy of Tang. The motivation is taught by Tang (Tang, Pg2, Paragraph1, Lines7-8, "an appropriate client selection strategy can alleviate the accuracy deterioration caused by heterogeneity and boost the convergence of FL"), establishing that applying parameter/gradient correlation filtering determines whether a device's update significantly contributes to global model convergence before participating in training or transmitting parameters. Furthermore, when integrating Tang's correlation-filtering strategy into Pezeshki's decentralized, peer-to-peer sidelink architecture, migrating the correlation evaluation and threshold comparison logic to the receiving secondary UE constitutes an obvious design choice and optimization to a POSITA. Performing correlation comparison locally on the receiving apparatus prior to parameter transmission offloads central processing overhead, avoids unnecessary transmission of high-dimensional neural network parameters over the air when correlation exceeds the threshold, and prevents redundant model updates. Consequently, this combination optimizes client selection under non-IID(independent and identical)/heterogenous data distributions, accelerates model convergence, and drastically reduces wireless signaling overhead and power consumption across sidelink and uplink transmissions.
As to dependent Claim 15,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 2. It represents the corresponding apparatus/transmitter-side limitations of Claim2 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 16,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 3. It represents the corresponding apparatus/transmitter-side limitations of Claim3 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 17,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 4. It represents the corresponding apparatus/transmitter-side limitations of Claim4, wherein receiving the second parameter and updating the first neural network model using the received parameter corresponds to the local update reception and model aggregation disclosures of Pezeshki cited in Claim4. Thus, it is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 18,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 5. It represents the corresponding apparatus/transmitter-side limitations of Claim5 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent Claim 19,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 6. It represents the corresponding apparatus/transmitter-side limitations of Claim6 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki and Tang as mentioned in Claim 1 or 7 in further view of Kousaridas et al. (Kou), Non-Patent Literature, “Recent Advances in 3GPP Networks for Vehicular Communications”, published in 2017, Pages: 7.
As to dependent Claim 13,
The combination of Pezeshki and Tang teaches, as mentioned above, all the limitations of Claim 7. It teaches a communication apparatus configured to receive a first neural network parameters and send indication information to participate in model training based on a correlation coefficient between neural network parameters being less than a first threshold.
Pezeshki further teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, further comprising the processor, wherein
the interface is further configured to cooperate with the processor to receive a signal (
Pezeshki, Pg7, Paragraph72, Lines14-20, "For example , the PSCCH 315 may carry sidelink control information (SCI) 330, which may indicate various control information used for sidelink communications, such as one or more resources (e.g., time resource , frequency resources, spatial resources, and/or the like) where a transport block (TB) 335 may be carried on the PSSCH 320"
Pg8, Paragraph76, Lines1-8, "In the transmission mode where resource selection and/or scheduling is performed by a UE 305, the UE 305 may generate sidelink grants, and may transmit the grants in SCI 330. A sidelink grant may indicate, for example, one or more parameters (e.g., transmission parameters) to be used for an upcoming sidelink transmission, such as one or more resource blocks to be used for the upcoming sidelink transmission on the PSSCH 320"
Pg10, Paragraph100, lines1-2, “As shown by reference number 635, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive…”
Pg10, Paragraph101, Lines1-10, " As shown by reference number 645, the UE 605 may transmit, and the UE 610 may receive… The UE 605 may transmit the first local update by transmitting a sidelink communication that includes the first local update... In some aspects, the sidelink communication may be carried on at least one of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), or a combination thereof"
Wherein Pezeshki explicitly teaches the UE 610 (corresponding apparatus or the interface, which inherently has a processor) receiving control signaling, such as Sidelink Control Information (SCI) or a sidelink grant over the Physical Sidelink Control Channel (PSCCH).)
Although Pezeshki teaches the Sidelink Control Information, control signals to allocate resources, Pezeshki does not explicitly teach (Highlighted Parts)
the interface is further configured to cooperate with the processor to receive a synchronization signal on a cooperation synchronization resource; the processor is configured to perform synchronization with the first communication apparatus based on the synchronization signal; and wherein the cooperation synchronization resource is configured in the sidelink configuration information.
In the same field of endeavor, Kou teaches this limitation (
Kou, Pg94, Left Column, Last Paragraph, Lines1-5, “The Information Element SystemInformationBlockType21 (SIB21) is periodically broadcasted from the BSs and contains common configuration information related to V2X sidelink communication (sl-V2X-ConfigCommon). Some of the information includes:
Pg94, Right Column, Fifth Bullet, “v2x-SyncConfig: synchronization configuration for Sidelink Synchronization Signal (SLSS) transmission.”
wherein Kou explicitly discloses that sidelink configuration information periodically broadcasted by base stations (e.g., SystemInformationBlockType21 / SIB21 containing sl-V2X-ConfigCommon) includes dedicated synchronization resource configurations. Because receiving the Sidelink Synchronization Signal (SLSS) over the resource defined by v2x-SyncConfig enables a receiving communication apparatus (corresponding apparatus or interface) to synchronize its timing with a transmitting apparatus (corresponding first communication apparatus) over the sidelink interface prior to data exchange, rendering it functionally equivalent to the claimed invention of receiving a synchronization signal on a cooperation synchronization resource configured in sidelink configuration information and performing synchronization with the first communication apparatus based on the synchronization signal.
Pezeshki, Tang, and Kou are analogous to the claimed invention as they are from the same field of endeavor of wireless communication networks, sidelink communications, and distributed machine learning/federated learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the sidelink-assisted federated learning framework and local update aggregation scheme of Pezeshki and the correlation-based client participation and selection strategy of Tang with the sidelink synchronization configuration and Sidelink Synchronization Signal (SLSS) transmission mechanism of Kou. The motivation is taught by Kou (Kou, Pg91, Right Column, Paragraph1, Lines6-10, “With the advent of automated driving functions, especially
with the broad availability of vehicles that will be capable of supporting higher automation levels, the need for synchronization and coordination among vehicles becomes increasingly necessary”) such that incorporating Kou’s sidelink synchronization signaling scheme into the combined framework enables distributed wireless devices to establish precise time-frequency slot alignment and frame synchronization prior to discovering neighboring UEs, evaluating neural network parameter correlation coefficients, and exchanging control/data signals over sidelink channels (PSCCH/PSSCH). Without standardized sidelink synchronization, peer-to-peer transmissions of neural network parameters, correlation-filtering indication signals, and scheduling grants would suffer from severe timing offsets, inter-slot interference, and packet collisions in dynamic wireless environments. Therefore, applying Kou’s synchronization mechanism provides the physical-layer timing foundation required to execute Tang’s correlation-based client selection and Pezeshki’s sidelink update aggregation reliably, ensuring error-free parameter exchange, seamless cooperation discovery, and stable overall model convergence across the sidelink network.
As to dependent Claim 20,
it is an apparatus claim that contains similar limitations of Claim 13. It represents the corresponding apparatus/transmitter-side limitations of Claim13 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONG YOON JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-0198. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/DONG YOON JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights