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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2021032497 (Normann).
Regarding claim 10, Normann teaches or suggests a first network element, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a program or instructions capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by the processor, (claim 26) cause the first network element to perform:
receiving a request message sent by a second network element, wherein the request message comprises filter information (11:13-15, 22-23 NRF 310 receives from NWDAF 308 a first request message 400 for identification information for a plurality of candidate network entities capable of performing collaborative learning; the first request message 400 comprises one or more first selection criteria for selecting candidate network entities for performing the collaborative learning process; 14:10-14 NWDAF 308 transmits request message 404 comprising at least one query for comprising one or more selection criteria for selecting candidate network entities);
determining based on the filter information, one or more first devices as candidate member(s) able to participate in federated learning (NRF 310 identifies, from a plurality of network entities registered at the network registration entity, two or more candidate network entities capable of performing collaborative learning; 17:15 OAM 312 may determine which candidate network devices satisfy this requirement); and
sending a response message to the second network element, wherein the response message comprises an identifier of the candidate member (NRF 310 transmits, in a first response message 402, an indication of the two or more candidate network entities to the NWDAF 308; 17:15-17 OAM 312 may send an indication of which candidate network devices satisfy this requirement to the NWDAF).
Normann elsewhere teaches or suggests the filter information comprises at least one of the following: a time window for indicating a time window available for the federated learning; a wireless access type for indicating a wireless access type that needs to be selected for the federated learning; or an area of interest (AOI) for indicating an area in which the candidate member is located (15:32-16:2 performance requirement may be specific to a particular time period; 20:9-10 select the subset of candidate network entities based on their location in the network).
It would have been obvious to combine teachings or suggestions from these embodiments because "[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness." Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 17, 19, and 20, Normann teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained regarding claim 10 supra, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 11, and 18, Normann teaches or suggests the first device comprises at least one of the following: a first device in a network-connected state within the time window; a first device supporting federated learning within the time window; a first device in the wireless access type; a first device supporting federated learning in the wireless access type; or a first device located within the AOI (15:32-16:2, 20:9-10).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Normann teaches or suggests the determining, by the first network element based on the filter information, one or more first devices as candidate member(s) able to participate in federated learning comprises: obtaining, by the first network element from a third network element, willingness information of the first device to participate in the federated learning; and determining, by the first network element based on the willingness information and the filter information, a first device that is willing to participate in the federated learning and that matches the filter information as a candidate member able to participate in the federated learning; or, obtaining, by the first network element, federated learning capability information of the first device, wherein the capability information comprises at least one of the following information: a wireless access type for participating in the federated learning, an area for participating in the federated learning, or time for participating in the federated learning; and determining, by the first network element based on the capability information and the filter information, a candidate member able to participate in the federated learning from the first device, wherein capability information of the candidate member matches the filter information; or, obtaining, by the first network element, network state information corresponding to the first device, wherein the network state information comprises at least one of the following: location information of the first device; or wireless access type information of the first device; and determining, by the first network element based on the filter information and the network state information corresponding to the first device, a candidate member able to participate in the federated learning from the first device, wherein network state information corresponding to the candidate member matches the filter information (12:25-30, 13:19-22, 15:32-16:2, 20:9-10.)
Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2021032497 (Normann) in view of US-20210258861 (Wang) further in view of EP-2978249 (Niknam).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Normann does not expressly disclose but Wang teaches or suggests obtaining, by the first network element, first indication information from a third network element (¶ 108). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Normann’s system and Wang’s forwarding so the former’s second element saves space otherwise needed to store all information required to respond to a request (Normann 17:24 et seq.).
Normann does not expressly disclose but Niknam teaches or suggests the first indication information is used to indicate willingness information of second devices to participate in the federated learning, and the willingness information indicates whether the second devices are willing to participate in the federated learning; and determining one or more first devices as the candidate member(s) based on the filter information and the first indication information, wherein the first device is a device among the second devices that is willing to participate in the federated learning and that meets the filter information (steps 207-08 description).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Normann’s system, Wang’s forwarding, and Niknam’s information avoid unwilling devices.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests obtaining, by the first network element, capability information of the second devices to participate in the federated learning, wherein the capability information comprises at least one of the following information: a wireless access type for participating in the federated learning, an area for participating in the federated learning, or time for participating in the federated learning (Niknam, steps 207-08 description); and determining one or more first devices as the candidate member(s) based on the filter information, the first indication information, and the capability information, wherein the first device is a device among the second devices that is willing to participate in the federated learning and whose federated learning capability information meets the filter information (Normann 15:32-16:2, 20:9-10; Niknam, steps 207-08 description).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2021032497 (Normann) in view of US-20210385732 (Reyes).
Normann teaches or suggests the request message further comprises at least one of the following: sorting indication information, the sorting indication information is used to indicate to sort the candidate members based on second information, and the second information comprises at least one of the following: signal quality of the candidate member, accuracy information of the candidate member, or traffic information of the candidate member; and an order of identifiers of candidate members in the response message is an order obtained through sorting based on the second information; or grouping indication information, the grouping indication information is used to indicate to group the candidate members based on third information, and the third information comprises at least one of the following information: an area in which the candidate member is located, a time window within which the candidate member is in a network-connected state, an algorithm type supported by the candidate member, accuracy information of the candidate member, a wireless access type of the candidate member, and signal quality of the candidate member; or identifiers of candidate members in the response message are identifiers obtained through grouping based on the third information; or, wherein the response message further comprises at least one of the following information: an area in which the candidate member is located, a time window within which the candidate member is in a network-connected state, an algorithm type supported by the candidate member, accuracy information of the candidate member, a wireless access type of the candidate member, signal quality of the candidate member, traffic information of the candidate member, or a time window within which the candidate member is able to perform federated learning (15:30 17:12-17, 19:34-20:7).
Normann does not expressly disclose but Reyes teaches or suggests second indication information, and the second indication information is used to indicate a service type corresponding to the federated learning (¶¶ 16, 17, 48, 49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Normann’s system and Reyes’ indication information to precisely specify selection criteria.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US-20210119901 receives an interest packet to start a federated learning round (22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights