Detailed Office Action
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (05/21/2024) in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon initial entry, claims (1 -10) appear pending for examination, of which (1, 7) are the two (2) parallel running independent claims on record.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
5. The submitted Drawings on date (05/21/2024) has been accepted and considered under the 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
Information Disclosure Statement
6. It is note that no information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed with this application. However, the Background & introduction Sections of Applicant's Specification describe several known materials and technologies that seem pertinent to be presented by the Applicant, moving forward.
35 USC 112 (a) rejection.
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7.1. Claims (1 -10) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
_ The cited above claims read in part - “maximum-value adaption method”; but in no embodiment does there exist any description of such “adaption method” as claimed. It notes that the specs enable the “method” in [0006], however no method description found, in such a way, as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of what’s claimed.
_ The cited above claims read in part ”a quantization parameter/error reduction process”; however, in no embodiment does there exist any description of such functionality for what and/or how, is to be quantized, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Also, claim (4) refers to a single “quantization parameter”, and claims (7-10) refer to “at least one parameter”), being difficult to understand how the inventor envisioning the functionality to be performed.
7.2. For the purpose of examination, the cited above “method” and quantization step(s) will be read as part of the “learning clustering algorithm” and “data compression” techniques (encoding/decoding), as briefly disclosed in the specs, as originally filed. Proper correction and/or clarification is still required moving forward.
35 USC 112 (b) rejection.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) 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.
8.1. Claims (4 and 7-10) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as per the claims recites the feature limitations associated with (“quantization technique”) however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the origination and steps associated with the claimed “over-the-air computation (OAC) scheme”. Proper correction/clarification is required moving forward.
8.2. Claims (2 -10) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as per the claims recites feature limitations associated with a “re-initialization strategy for …one centroid”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the origination and steps associated with the “original/primary” initiation strategy, nowhere described in the specs. as originally filed. Proper correction and/or clarification is required moving forward.
8.2. See [MPEP 2173.02; …limitations/features in the claims should not been ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. If the claim language, (given its broadest reasonable interpretation) is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under “35 U.S.C. 112 (b)” is appropriate.
35 USC 103
9. This is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
8.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) that applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103(a) 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 non-obviousness
8.2. Claims (1-5 and 7 -9) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Federated K -Means Clustering; 2020” (hereafter “Kumar”), in view of Sahin; et al. “A Survey on Over-the-Air Computation”, (hereafter “Sahin”).
Claim 1. Kumar discloses the principles of the invention substantially as claimed - A method for an over-the-air computation (OAC) scheme comprising: (e.g. an efficient data aggregation in large-scale distributed systems (i.e. large mobile phone’s networks) of wireless multiple-access channels; [Kumar; page 1].
Kumar specifically teaches - obtaining access to at least one wireless network with at least one edge device (i.e. DEVICE ‘n’) and one edge server (i.e. central unit) connected over the at least one wireless network; (e.g. see similar architecture where Tx/Rx between device-server is provided, as shown in Fig. 1; [Kumar; pages 1-2]);
reducing per-round communication latency via computing a sum of at least one update for a federated k-means clustering algorithm via signal superposition property of wireless multiple-access channels non-coherently; (e.g. reducing latency, via sum computation of the cluster data, for a federated k-means clustering algorithm; [Kumar; Chap. IV]);
and employing a federated k-means clustering algorithm to reduce the per-round communication latency when implemented over a wireless network; (e.g. reducing the communication latency in the process; [Kumar; page (1 and 5)].)
Kumar does not teach the use - eliminating a need for precise phase and time synchronization as the at least one edge device does not use channel state information (CSI), in his papers.
For the purpose of additional clarification and in the same field of endeavor, Sahin discloses – a similar “Over-the-air” computation technique, based on balanced number systems for federated edge learning, as claimed.
Sahin specifically teaches - no channel state information is required – in at least [pages 25]; and also - eliminating a need for precise phase and time synchronization – by using pre-equalization techniques, by imposing stringent requirements on underlying mechanisms such as time-frequency-phase synchronization, channel estimation, and channel prediction. Sahin further teaches reducing quantization errors over TX/Rx rounds, employing Adaptive Absolute Max (AAM) techniques. [page 9, 13, 17m 24].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kumar and Sahin, in order to provide: (e.g. substantially reduction of the per-round Tx/Rx latency and bandwidth utilization; [page 12, 13, 24].
Claim 2. Kumar/Sahin discloses - The method of claim 1 further comprising reinitializing at least one centroid to increase performance for heterogeneous data distribution [Sahin; 11, 13, 18, 22, 25]. via employing the federated k-means clustering algorithm; (e.g. see k-means methodology; [Sahin; page 23]. The same motivation applies herein.
Claim 3. Kumar/Sahin discloses - The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one centroid has a small cardinality in a corresponding partition; (e.g. see dataset partitioning in at least [Sahin; page 14]. The same motivation applies herein.
Claim 4. Kumar/Sahin discloses - The method of claim 1, further comprising utilizing a maximum-value adaptation method to reduce quantization error; (e.g. see quantization error implemented; [Sahin; pages 7 -8]. The same motivation applies herein.
Claim 5. Kumar/Sahin discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein a number of complex-valued resources consumed for each communication round can be calculated as LCβD and are not scaled with a number of edge devices. (e.g. employing Adaptive Absolute Max (AAM) techniques. [page 9, 13, 17]. The same motivation applies herein.
Claim 6. Objected to (see section (10) below for details)
Claim 7. Kumar/Sahin discloses - A system for addressing per round communication latency comprising: (e.g. similar round communication scheme, addressing latency reduction, Fig. 1; [pages 1-2])
at least one edge device connected to at least one edge server over at least one wireless network;
employing at least one wireless federated k-means clustering algorithm along with an over-the-air computation scheme such that no channel state information is required for the at least one edge device or the at least one edge server;
wherein employing the at least one wireless federated k-means clustering algorithm further: utilizes a maximum-value adaption method to reduce at least one quantization error; and employs a re-initialization strategy for at least one centroid. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “system form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.). In addition, Sahin teaches reducing quantization errors over TX/Rx rounds, employing Adaptive Absolute Max (AAM) techniques. [page 9, 13, 17, 24].
Claim 8. Kumar/Sahin discloses - The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one centroid has a small cardinality.
Claim 9. Kumar/Sahin discloses - The system of claim 7, a number of complex-valued resources consumed for each communication round can be calculated as LCβD and are not scaled with a number of edge devices.
Claim 10. Objected to (see section 10 below for details)
Claim Objection section
10. Claims (6 and 10) are objected to because of the “federated k-means” feature technique disclosed, but they may be considered for allowance if properly rewritten and/or if incorporated in the language of the two parallel running independent claims (1 and 7).
Prior Art Citations
11. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered
pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
11.1. Patent documentation
US 10,728,806 B2 H04W24/04; H04W36/00224; Chen; et al.
US 11,956,726 B1 H04W52/0229; H04W52/0258 Guo; et al.
US 12,438,675 B2 H04L27/2605; H04L5/0053; Guo; et al.
US 12,033,391 B2 G06N3/02; G06V20/56; Singh; et al.
US 12,187,301 B2 B60W50/06; G06N20/00; Himayat; et al.
US 11,617,094 B2 H04L41/044; G06N3/0442; Honkasalo; et al.
US 2025/0240647 A1 H04W24/02; H04L41/16 Srinivas et al.
11.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ OAC Based on Balanced Number Systems for Federated Edge Learning; Sahin -2024.
_ A survey on over-the-air computation; Sahin – 2022.
_ Optimize cloud computations using edge computing; Singh – 2017.
_ Federated K-Means Clustering - Kumar – 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
Prosecution Insights