Detailed Action
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
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akdeniz (WO 2021158313 A1) in view of Janse Van Rensburg et al. (US 2018/0103442 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Akdeniz discloses a method for wireless communication by a base station (BS) and base station, comprising:
wherein the plurality of UEs and the BS share a global federated learning model (see [0123] Federated learning, where a global model is trained with coordination with a federation of client);
the first set of local gradient information comprising local gradient information calculated by each UE of multiple UEs of the plurality of UEs (see “federated learning, as different clients can compute their local gradients, and the MEC server may then aggregate all local gradients to produce the global updated model”, [0392 page 64]),
aggregating, in an analog domain, the first set of signals to aggregate the first set of local gradient information received from the multiple UEs (see “federated learning, as different clients can compute their local gradients, and the MEC server may then aggregate all local gradients to produce the global updated model”, [0392 page 64]),
Zhang best discloses transmitting, to a plurality of UEs, a first reference signal (RS) via a first transmit beam of the BS (see claim 12, reference signals transmitted to UEs),
Zhang best discloses the first set of local gradient information (see “gradient”, “received form the BS”) received via a first receive beam of the BS (see Beamforming and RS in [0007]); and
Zhang best discloses receiving, in response to the first RS, a first set of signals each carrying corresponding local gradient information (see claim 12, gradient vector data received from UE) of a first set of local gradient information for the global federated learning model;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Zhang with that of Akdeniz. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 2 & 15, Akdeniz in view of Zhang discloses method of claim 1 and BS of 14, further comprising: updating the global federated learning model based on an average of the first set of signals (see “federated learning, as different clients can compute their local gradients, and the MEC server may then aggregate all local gradients to produce the global updated model”, [0392 page 64]).
Regarding claims 4 & 17, Akdeniz in view of Zhang discloses the method of claim 1 and BS of 14, wherein the local gradient information comprises a gradient vector corresponding to the UE (see gradient and vector [0127]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-10, 16, 18-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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, see 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 information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights