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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1 - 30 are pending. Claims 1, 28, 29, 30 are independent. File date on 1-3-2025.
35 USC § 112(f) Analysis
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are in claim 29.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations. The specification in paragraph [0224] discloses the following:
Paragraph [0224]: The aforementioned means may be one or more of the aforementioned components of the apparatus 2002 configured to perform the functions recited by the aforementioned means. As described supra, the apparatus 2002 may include the TX processor 416, 468, the RX processor 456, 470 and the controller/processor 459, 475. As such, in one configuration, the aforementioned means may be the TX processor 416, 468, the RX processor 456, 470 and the controller/processor 459, 475 configured to perform the functions recited by the aforementioned means
The Applicant has defined the means for performing the indicated steps as computing software executing by a computing system (i.e. a computing system comprising a CPU or processor executing a sequence of instructions or software). The specification has disclosed sufficient structure and steps to perform the indicated “means” functions.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 2, 21 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220114475).
Regarding Claims 1, 28, 29, 30, Zhu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication and a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) and an apparatus for wireless communication and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code, comprising:
a) a processor; b) memory coupled with the processor (Zhu ¶ 009: The client computing system includes: a memory storing a first set of local model parameters for a local machine learning model, and storing a first weighting coefficient representing a relative importance of a local dataset; and a processing device in communication with the memory. The processing device is configured to execute instructions to cause the client computing system to: identify one or more neighbor client computing systems of the decentralized federated learning system in direct communication with the client computing system;),
the processor configured to:
c) provide a first message including first federated learning (FL) information of the apparatus to a network node; (Zhu ¶ 009: transmit the first weighting coefficient and the first set of local model parameters (federated learning information) to each identified neighbor client computing system)
d) obtain a second message including second FL information of the network node; (Zhu ¶ 009: receive, from one or more other neighbor client computing system, a respective second set of local model parameters (federated learning information) and a respective second weighting coefficient, the one or more other neighbor client computing systems being different or same as the identified one or more neighbor client computing systems) and
e) provide a machine learning (ML) model information update to the network node based on the first FL information and the second FL information. (Zhu ¶ 009: update the first set of local model parameters using a weighted aggregation of the respective second set of local model parameters received from the one or more other neighbor client computing systems, each respective second set of local model parameters being weighted with the respective second weighting coefficient; and train the local machine learning model using a machine learning algorithm and the local dataset.; ¶ 008: federated learning systems described herein, each client may be responsible for updating its respective local model, which may lead to a more balanced workload over the entire federated learning system. Each client may communicate directly with another client (rather than via a central server), which may reduce the number of connection hops and thus lead to lower latencies during data transmission.)
Furthermore, for Claim 30, Zhu discloses wherein a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code, the code when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations. (Zhu ¶ 009: The client computing system includes: a memory storing a first set of local model parameters for a local machine learning model, and storing a first weighting coefficient representing a relative importance of a local dataset; and a processing device in communication with the memory. The processing device is configured to execute instructions to cause the client computing system to: identify one or more neighbor client computing systems of the decentralized federated learning system in direct communication with the client computing system;),
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ML model information update comprises at least one of:
a weight; a gradient; or a scaling factor, the scaling factor being a multiplicand or a summand; (Zhu ¶ 017: The weighted aggregation used to update the first set of local model parameters may be a linear combination of the first set of local model parameters and the second set of local model parameters.; (selected: a weight)) and
wherein the first FL information comprises at least one of: a machine learning task of the apparatus; an available sensor coupled to the apparatus for the machine learning task; an available ML model associated with the machine learning task; or an available computation resource of the apparatus for the machine learning task; (Zhu ¶ 011: the processing device may be configured to execute instructions to cause the client computing system to: define a task to be learned by the local machine learning model, a definition of the task including a model architecture and a set of parameters to be used for the local machine learning model, the definition of the task also including a loss function to be used for training the local machine learning model; and transmit a task initialization request to one or more other client computing systems of the decentralized federated learning system; (selected: a machine learning task of the apparatus)) and
wherein the apparatus and the network node are user equipment (UEs). (Zhu ¶ 055: the client 102 may be or may include such devices as a client device/terminal, user equipment/device (UE), wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), mobile station, fixed or mobile subscriber unit, cellular telephone, station (STA), personal digital assistant (PDA), smartphone, laptop, computer, tablet, wireless sensor, wearable device, smart device, machine type communications device, smart (or connected) vehicles, or consumer electronics device, among other possibilities.; (UE: user equipment))
Regarding Claim 21, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) obtain, from the network node when the network node is an FL cluster leader of an FL cluster including the apparatus and the network node, an ML model configuration including an initial weight; (Zhu ¶ 097: after satisfying the convergence condition, each client 102 stores the respective trained local model 104 that includes the respective set of learned local model parameters. The trained local model 104 may then be deployed by each client 102 independently for prediction in an inference phase.)
b) wherein the ML model information update provided to the network node includes an update to the initial weight; (Zhu ¶ 091: The given client 102 updates its respective set of local model parameters and its respective weighting coefficient using the computed aggregations.) and
c) obtain, from the FL cluster leader, an aggregated ML model information update including an aggregation of the ML model information update with a second ML model information update of a second network node in the FL cluster. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
Regarding Claim 22, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the aggregated ML model information update further includes a second aggregation of the ML model information update with a third ML model information update of a third network node in a second FL cluster. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
Regarding Claim 23, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) obtain, from the network node when the apparatus is an FL cluster leader of an FL cluster including the apparatus and the network node, a second ML model information update; (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
b) wherein the ML model information update includes an aggregation of the second ML model information update and a third ML model information update of a second network node in the FL cluster. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
Regarding Claim 24, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) obtain, from a FL parameter network entity when the apparatus is an FL cluster leader of an FL cluster including the apparatus and the network node, an aggregated ML model information update including an aggregation of the ML model information update with a second ML model information update of a second network node in a second FL cluster; (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.) and
b) provide the aggregated ML model information update to the network node in the FL cluster. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
Regarding Claim 25, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain, from the network node, a second ML model information update; and provide, to the network node, an aggregated ML model information update including an aggregation of the ML model information update with the second ML model information update. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
Regarding Claim 26, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) provide, to the network node, a request for a second ML model information update; b) obtain the second ML model information update in response to the network node having an ML model associated with a performance metric satisfying a threshold; (Zhu ¶ 096: If the determination of convergence is made by individual clients 102, it is possible that some clients 102 determine that the convergence condition is satisfied and other clients 102 determine that the convergence condition is not satisfied (e.g., different clients 102 may have different gradient vectors that may or may not satisfy a convergence condition). In such cases, clients 102 that determine the convergence condition is satisfied may simply cease to participate in further training rounds, and the method 500 returns to step 508 with a reduced number of clients 102 (e.g., until the number of participating clients 102 drops below a defined minimum number).) and
c) wherein the ML model information update includes an aggregation of the second ML model information update with a third ML model information update from a second network node. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
Regarding Claim 27, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) obtain, from the network node, a request for the ML model information update; wherein the ML model information update is associated with an ML model and responsive to a performance metric of the ML model satisfying a threshold; (Zhu ¶ 096: If the determination of convergence is made by individual clients 102, it is possible that some clients 102 determine that the convergence condition is satisfied and other clients 102 determine that the convergence condition is not satisfied (e.g., different clients 102 may have different gradient vectors that may or may not satisfy a convergence condition). In such cases, clients 102 that determine the convergence condition is satisfied may simply cease to participate in further training rounds, and the method 500 returns to step 508 with a reduced number of clients 102 (e.g., until the number of participating clients 102 drops below a defined minimum number).) and
b) obtain, from the network node, an aggregated ML model information update including an aggregation of the ML model information update with a second ML model information update from a second network node. (Zhu ¶ 051: the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system of the present disclosure may become more robust, because the failure of a single client does not necessarily result in abrupt failure of the horizontal, decentralized federated learning system. In a horizontal decentralized federated learning system, each client performs aggregation of information from its neighbor clients and updates its respective local model. The result is that the workload may be more balanced across clients, rather than being heavily placed on a central node.)
6. 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.
7. Claims 3 - 5, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Mallikarjunaiah et al. (US Patent No. 11,153,812)
Regarding Claim 3, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including neighbor discovery. (Zhu ¶ 117: At each given client 102, step 508 of method 500 may be modified such that the set of neighbor clients(s) is identified using the set of neighbor clients (s) provided by the scheduler 202 (instead of each client 102 performing its own discovery of neighbor clients(s)))
Zhu does not explicitly disclose provide a neighbor discovery message to the network node.
However, Mallikarjunaiah discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: provide a neighbor discovery message to the network node prior to transmission of the first message. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2: APs in the same RF continuity space may be validated using neighbor information available in Neighbor Discovery Packets (NDPs) that may be broadcasted periodically by the APs. In other words, the RF continuity space for a given AP may be deduced from NDP messages (i.e., RRM neighbor information) exchanged between APs in the site.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide a neighbor discovery message to the network node as taught by Mallikarjunaiah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Mallikarjunaiah for the benefits achieved from improved operational processes. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2; col 4)
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose provide the neighbor discovery message periodically or in response to an event trigger.
However, Mallikarjunaiah wherein the processor is configured to provide the neighbor discovery message periodically or in response to an event trigger. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2: APs in the same RF continuity space may be validated using neighbor information available in Neighbor Discovery Packets (NDPs) that may be broadcasted periodically by the APs. In other words, the RF continuity space for a given AP may be deduced from NDP messages (i.e., RRM neighbor information) exchanged between APs in the site.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide the neighbor discovery message periodically or in response to an event trigger as taught by Mallikarjunaiah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Mallikarjunaiah for the benefits achieved from improved operational processes. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2; col 4)
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose configured to provide the neighbor discovery message to the network node in a broadcast or a groupcast.
However, Mallikarjunaiah discloses wherein the processor is configured to provide the neighbor discovery message to the network node in a broadcast or a groupcast. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2: APs in the same RF continuity space may be validated using neighbor information available in Neighbor Discovery Packets (NDPs) that may be broadcasted periodically by the APs. In other words, the RF continuity space for a given AP may be deduced from NDP messages (i.e., RRM neighbor information) exchanged between APs in the site.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for configured to provide the neighbor discovery message to the network node in a broadcast or a groupcast as taught by Mallikarjunaiah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Mallikarjunaiah for the benefits achieved from improved operational processes. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2; col 4)
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first message is a neighbor discovery message. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2: APs in the same RF continuity space may be validated using neighbor information available in Neighbor Discovery Packets (NDPs) that may be broadcasted periodically by the APs. In other words, the RF continuity space for a given AP may be deduced from NDP messages (i.e., RRM neighbor information) exchanged between APs in the site.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide the neighbor discovery message periodically or in response to an event trigger as taught by Mallikarjunaiah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Mallikarjunaiah for the benefits achieved from improved operational processes. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2; col 4)
Regarding Claim 11, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose second message is a neighbor discovery response message based on the first FL information.
However, Mallikarjunaiah discloses wherein the second message is a neighbor discovery response message based on the first FL information. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2: APs in the same RF continuity space may be validated using neighbor information available in Neighbor Discovery Packets (NDPs) that may be broadcasted periodically by the APs. In other words, the RF continuity space for a given AP may be deduced from NDP messages (i.e., RRM neighbor information) exchanged between APs in the site.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for second message is a neighbor discovery response message based on the first FL information as taught by Mallikarjunaiah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Mallikarjunaiah for the benefits achieved from improved operational processes. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2; col 4)
8. Claims 6 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Mallikarjunaiah and further in view of Wu et al. (Patent No. CN 109951886 A)
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the neighbor discovery response message indicates the apparatus is an asymmetric neighbor of network node.
However, Wu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a neighbor discovery response message from the network node in response to the neighbor discovery message, wherein the neighbor discovery response message indicates the apparatus is an asymmetric neighbor of the network node. (Wu col 5 and 6: ASYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list are asymmetric, representation can receive the message, but not the adjacent node determining whether the adjacent node can receive the message of the node; SYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list is symmetrical. represents can receive message of the adjacent node, the adjacent node also can receive the message of the node; ASYM-NEIGH: asymmetric neighbor can receive message of the adjacent node to not determine whether the neighbor node can receive the message of the node; SYM-NEIGH: symmetrical neighbour can receive message of the adjacent node, and neighbor node also can receive the message of the node;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for the neighbor discovery response message indicates the apparatus is an asymmetric neighbor of the network node as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Wu for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple network communications techniques such as neighbor discovery. (Wu col 5 and 6)
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah-Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 6.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose provide an acknowledgment of the neighbor discovery response message, and the acknowledgment indicates network node is a symmetric neighbor of apparatus.
However, Wu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: provide an acknowledgment of the neighbor discovery response message to the network node, wherein the acknowledgment indicates the network node is a symmetric neighbor of the apparatus. (Wu col 5 and 6: ASYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list are asymmetric, representation can receive the message, but not the adjacent node determining whether the adjacent node can receive the message of the node; SYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list is symmetrical. represents can receive message of the adjacent node, the adjacent node also can receive the message of the node; ASYM-NEIGH: asymmetric neighbor can receive message of the adjacent node to not determine whether the neighbor node can receive the message of the node;
SYM-NEIGH: symmetrical neighbour can receive message of the adjacent node, and neighbor node also can receive the message of the node;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide an acknowledgment of the neighbor discovery response message, and the acknowledgment indicates network node is a symmetric neighbor of apparatus as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Wu for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple network communications techniques such as neighbor discovery. (Wu col 5 and 6)
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah-Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 7.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose obtain an acknowledgment message in response to acknowledgment, wherein acknowledgment message indicates apparatus is a symmetric neighbor.
However, Wu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain an acknowledgment message from the network node in response to the acknowledgment, wherein the acknowledgment message indicates the apparatus is a symmetric neighbor of the network node. (Wu col 5 and 6: ASYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list are asymmetric, representation can receive the message, but not the adjacent node determining whether the adjacent node can receive the message of the node; SYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list is symmetrical. represents can receive message of the adjacent node, the adjacent node also can receive the message of the node; ASYM-NEIGH: asymmetric neighbor can receive message of the adjacent node to not determine whether the neighbor node can receive the message of the node;
SYM-NEIGH: symmetrical neighbour can receive message of the adjacent node, and neighbor node also can receive the message of the node;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for obtain an acknowledgment message in response to acknowledgment, wherein acknowledgment message indicates apparatus is a symmetric neighbor. as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Wu for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple network communications techniques such as neighbor discovery. (Wu col 5 and 6)
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah-Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 8.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose message is in response to acknowledgment message.
However, Wu disclose wherein the first message is in response to the acknowledgment message. (Wu col 5 and 6: ASYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list are asymmetric, representation can receive the message, but not the adjacent node determining whether the adjacent node can receive the message of the node; SYM-LINK: asymmetric link, sending the hello link node and the adjacent node in the message list is symmetrical. represents can receive message of the adjacent node, the adjacent node also can receive the message of the node; ASYM-NEIGH: asymmetric neighbor can receive message of the adjacent node to not determine whether the neighbor node can receive the message of the node;
SYM-NEIGH: symmetrical neighbour can receive message of the adjacent node, and neighbor node also can receive the message of the node;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for message is in response to acknowledgment message as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Wu for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple network communications techniques such as neighbor discovery. (Wu col 5 and 6)
9. Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Mallikarjunaiah and further in view of Miura et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200344826)
Regarding Claim 12, Zhu-Mallikarjunaiah discloses the apparatus of claim 10,
Zhu does not explicitly disclose provide an acknowledgment to network node in response to message based on the FL information.
However, Miura discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: provide an acknowledgment to the network node in response to the second message based on the second FL information. (Miura ¶ 051: In a case where the communication acknowledgement response received in step S7 is an acknowledgement (Ack), the communication acknowledgement succeeds, and a network connection between the communication equipment 100 and the internet 30 is established. On the other hand, in a case where the communication acknowledgement response received in step S7 is a negative acknowledgement (Nack) or in a case where a timeout occurs without a communication acknowledgement response being received, the communication acknowledgement fails.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide an acknowledgment to network node in response to message based on the FL information as taught by Miura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Miura for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables management of network communication messages such the utilization of acknowledgement responses controlling network communications. (Miura ¶ 051)
Regarding Claim 13, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose for a) provide a neighbor discovery response message in response to a neighbor discovery message.
However, Mallikarjunaiah discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) provide, to a second network node, a second neighbor discovery response message in response to a second neighbor discovery message from the second network node. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2: APs in the same RF continuity space may be validated using neighbor information available in Neighbor Discovery Packets (NDPs) that may be broadcasted periodically by the APs. In other words, the RF continuity space for a given AP may be deduced from NDP messages (i.e., RRM neighbor information) exchanged between APs in the site.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for a) provide a neighbor discovery response message in response to a neighbor discovery message as taught by Mallikarjunaiah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Mallikarjunaiah for the benefits achieved from improved operational processes. (Mallikarjunaiah col 2; col 4)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose for b) discard an association as a neighbor node in response to a lack of acknowledgement response message within a timeout interval.
However, Miura discloses:
b) discard an association of the second network node as a neighbor node in response to a lack of acknowledgement of the second neighbor discovery response message within a timeout interval. (Miura ¶ 051: In a case where the communication acknowledgement response received in step S7 is an acknowledgement (Ack), the communication acknowledgement succeeds, and a network connection between the communication equipment 100 and the internet 30 is established. On the other hand, in a case where the communication acknowledgement response received in step S7 is a negative acknowledgement (Nack) or in a case where a timeout occurs without a communication acknowledgement response being received, the communication acknowledgement fails.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for b) discard an association as a neighbor node in response to a lack of acknowledgement response message within a timeout interval as taught by Miura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Miura for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables management of network communication messages such the utilization of acknowledgement responses controlling network communications. (Miura ¶ 051)
10. Claims 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yang et al. (US PGPUB No. 20180018198)
Regarding Claim 14, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose for a) obtain a message indicating network node is a candidate for election as a leader, and for b) provide a message to network node indicating a vote for network node as the leader, and for c) obtain a message from network node indicating network node is leader of the network.
However, Yang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) obtain a third message from the network node, the third message indicating the network node is a candidate for election as a leader of an FL cluster or peer-to-peer network; (Yang ¶ 031: Once every 10 seconds, each member can check the status of the leader node and perform the following steps. First, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can send a leader-failure notification message with its ID and priority as well as other needed information to all other members.)
b) provide, in response to the third message, a fourth message to the network node indicating a vote for the network node as the leader; (Yang ¶ 031: Second, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can vote for the member with the highest priority among those received in the first step.) and
c) obtain, in response to the fourth message, a fifth message from the network node indicating the network node is the leader of the FL cluster or the peer-to-peer network including the apparatus and the network node. (Yang ¶ 031: Third, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can check the ballots that the member has received in the second step, and the member can declare itself the new leader if the member has received ballots from a majority of members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for a) obtain a message indicating network node is a candidate for election as a leader, and for b) provide a message to network node indicating a vote for network node as the leader, and for c) obtain a message from network node indicating network node is leader of the network as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Yang for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the election of a group of network nodes utilizing a voting mechanism when a leader’s term has expired. (Yang ¶ 031)
Regarding Claim 15, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose for a) provide a message indicating the apparatus is a candidate for election as a leader, and for b) obtain a message indicating a vote for apparatus as leader, and for c) provide a message indicating apparatus is the leader of the FL cluster or the peer-to-peer network.
However, Yang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) provide a third message to the network node indicating the apparatus is a candidate for election as a leader of an FL cluster or peer-to-peer network; (Yang ¶ 031: Second, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can vote for the member with the highest priority among those received in the first step.)
b) obtain, in response to the third message, a fourth message from the network node indicating a vote for the apparatus as the leader; (Yang ¶ 031: Second, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can vote for the member with the highest priority among those received in the first step.) and
c) provide, in response to the fourth message, a fifth message indicating the apparatus is the leader of the FL cluster or the peer-to-peer network including the apparatus and the network node. (Yang ¶ 031: Third, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can check the ballots that the member has received in the second step, and the member can declare itself the new leader if the member has received ballots from a majority of members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for a) provide a message indicating the apparatus is a candidate for election as a leader, and for b) obtain a message indicating a vote for apparatus as leader, and for c) provide a message indicating apparatus is the leader of the FL cluster or the peer-to-peer network as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Yang for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the election of a group of network nodes utilizing a voting mechanism when a leader’s term has expired. (Yang ¶ 031)
Regarding Claim 16, Zhu-Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose provide, following a term as leader, a message indicating an end of the term.
However, Yang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: provide, following a term as the leader, a sixth message indicating an end of the term. (Yang ¶ 031: Third, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can check the ballots that the member has received in the second step, and the member can declare itself the new leader if the member has received ballots from a majority of members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide, following a term as leader, a message indicating an end of the term as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Yang for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the election of a group of network nodes utilizing a voting mechanism when a leader’s term has expired. (Yang ¶ 031)
Regarding Claim 17, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose message further indicates apparatus is a candidate to be a leader.
However, Yang discloses wherein the first message further indicates the apparatus is a candidate to be an FL cluster leader of an FL cluster. (Yang ¶ 031: Third, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can check the ballots that the member has received in the second step, and the member can declare itself the new leader if the member has received ballots from a majority of members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for message further indicates apparatus is a candidate to be a leader as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Yang for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the election of a group of network nodes utilizing a voting mechanism when a leader’s term has expired. (Yang ¶ 031)
11. Claims 18 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yang and further in view of Beekman et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220247576)
Regarding Claim 18, Zhu-Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose a request from network node to join FL cluster.
However, Beekman discloses wherein the second message further includes a request from the network node to join the FL cluster. (Beekman ¶ 059: A second node attestation manager 250 located on the second node 130 may send a remote attestation request to a first node attestation manager 202 on the first node 102 (arrow 252). The remote attestation request may be sent, for example, in response to a request from the first node to join a cluster of which the second node 130 is a member, in which case the application data 258 in the first node application enclave 256 may include information identifying the first node 102.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for a request from network node to join FL cluster as taught by Beekman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Beekman for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple type of messaging such as request and response messages. (Beekman ¶ 059)
Regarding Claim 19, Zhu-Yang-Beekman discloses the apparatus of claim 18, (Zhu ¶ 097: after satisfying the convergence condition, each client 102 stores the respective trained local model 104 that includes the respective set of learned local model parameters. The trained local model 104 may then be deployed by each client 102 independently for prediction in an inference phase.)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose provide response to message indicating that network node is in the FL cluster and that the apparatus is the FL cluster leader of the FL cluster.
However, Yang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: provide an acknowledgment to the network node in response to the second message indicating that the network node is in the FL cluster and that the apparatus is the FL cluster leader of the FL cluster. (Yang ¶ 031: Third, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can check the ballots that the member has received in the second step, and the member can declare itself the new leader if the member has received ballots from a majority of members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for provide response to message indicating that network node is in the FL cluster and that the apparatus is the FL cluster leader of the FL cluster as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Yang for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the election of a group of network nodes utilizing a voting mechanism when a leader’s term has expired. (Yang ¶ 031)
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yang and further in view of Beekman et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220247576) and Miura et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200344826)
Regarding Claim 20, Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose for a) obtain a message indicating a network node is a candidate to be a FL cluster leader.
However, Yang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
a) obtain a third message indicating a second network node is a candidate to be a first FL cluster leader of a first FL cluster. (Yang ¶ 031: Third, if the member determines that the tenure of the current leader has expired, then the member can check the ballots that the member has received in the second step, and the member can declare itself the new leader if the member has received ballots from a majority of members.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for a) obtain a message indicating a network node is a candidate to be a FL cluster leader. as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Yang for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the election of a group of network nodes utilizing a voting mechanism when a leader’s term has expired. (Yang ¶ 031)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose for b) provide a message indicating a request to join the FL cluster, and the processor is configured to provide message to network node requesting to join a second FL cluster or a candidate to be a second FL cluster leader.
However, Beekman discloses:
b) provide a fourth message indicating a request to join the first FL cluster; the processor is configured to provide the first message to the network node requesting to join a second FL cluster or indicating the apparatus is a candidate to be a second FL cluster leader of the second FL cluster. (Beekman ¶ 059: A second node attestation manager 250 located on the second node 130 may send a remote attestation request to a first node attestation manager 202 on the first node 102 (arrow 252). The remote attestation request may be sent, for example, in response to a request from the first node to join a cluster of which the second node 130 is a member, in which case the application data 258 in the first node application enclave 256 may include information identifying the first node 102.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for b) provide a message indicating a request to join the FL cluster, and the processor is configured to provide message to network node requesting to join a second FL cluster or a candidate to be a second FL cluster leader as taught by Beekman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Beekman for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple type of messaging such as request and response messages. (Beekman ¶ 059)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose a lack of acknowledgment of the fourth message from the second network node within a timeout window.
However, Miura discloses wherein in response to a lack of acknowledgment of the fourth message from the second network node within a timeout window. (Miura ¶ 051: In a case where the communication acknowledgement response received in step S7 is an acknowledgement (Ack), the communication acknowledgement succeeds, and a network connection between the communication equipment 100 and the internet 30 is established. On the other hand, in a case where the communication acknowledgement response received in step S7 is a negative acknowledgement (Nack) or in a case where a timeout occurs without a communication acknowledgement response being received, the communication acknowledgement fails.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu for a lack of acknowledgment of the fourth message from the second network node within a timeout window as taught by Miura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Miura for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables management of network communication messages such the utilization of acknowledgement responses controlling network communications. (Miura ¶ 051)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyung H Shin whose telephone number is (571)272-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 12pm - 8pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/KYUNG H SHIN/ 8-8-2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights