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
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/25/2025. In which, claims 46-68 are pending and being considered, claims 46, 58 and 67 are independent, claims 46-68 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025 and 05/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
The use of the term “Bluetooth” stated on Page 28, 32 and 35, the term “WiFi” stated on Page 28 and 35, and the term “Zigbee” stated on Page 28 and 35, which are trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 46-48, 54, 62 and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claims 46 and 67, the applicant recites the limitation “an indication” this is a typographical error as indication has already been recited. The claim should recite “the indication”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claims 46, 62 and 67, the applicant recites the limitation “the registered authorization information” this is a typographical error as there is a lack of antecedent basis. The claim should recite “the authorization information”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claims 47 and 62, the applicant recites the limitation “the FL group owner” this is a typographical error as there is a lack of antecedent basis. The claim should recite “an FL group owner” and remove the phrase “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 48, the applicant recites the limitation “the FL group owner”, “the one or more identifiers” and “the target ML model” this is a typographical error as there is a lack of antecedent basis. The claim should recite “an FL group owner” “one or more identifiers” and “target ML model” and remove the phrase “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 54, the applicant recites the limitation “an authorization token” this is a typographical error as indication has already been recited. The claim should recite “the authorization token”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 46-47, 49, 55-57 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”) further in view of Subramanya et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250139509, hereinafter referred to as “Subramanya”).
In regards to Claim 46, Duan teaches a method for a first network function (NF) configured to operate as a server of a federated learning (FL) group in a communication network, the method comprising: (Par. (0523-0525); federated learning group with network function), (Par. (0497); network function with FL group), (Par. (0850); server in network)
registering information associated with the FL group in a network repository function (NRF) of the communication network, (Par. (0531-0534); registering with information to NRF with FL group)
wherein: the FL group includes the first NF and one or more further NFs configured to operations as clients in the FL group, and (Par. (0547-0551); FL group with list of NF), (Par. (0526-0528); NF as client in FL group (NF as user equipment in FL group)
the registered information includes authorization information for additional NFs to join the FL group as clients; (Par. (0624-0632); joining the FL group includes authorization information (authorized request to join corresponding to UE ID, group ID, NF ID etc.), (Par. (0531-0534); registering information (registration request with information) includes authorization information (Group ID))
obtaining an indication that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client, (Par. (0032-0034 and 0037-0039); obtaining an indication (receiving a joining response ) for second functional entity joining to FL group then determining if allowed to join FL based on identification information)
wherein the obtained indication is based on the registered authorization information; and based on the obtained indication, (Par. (0308-0312); obtained indication (received response) based on registered authorization information (based on identification information) (Par. (0553-0555); indication (response) based on registered authorization information (Group ID)), (Par. (0068-0072); based on the obtained indication (received response based on characteristic information to join FL group)
updating the FL group to include the second NF as a client. (Par. (0512-0514); updating characteristic information of the FL group associated with second NF (second functionality entity)), (Par. (0655-0661); update request and adding to FL group that an NF has joined)
Duan does not explicitly teach receiving an indication of a second NF, of the communication network, that is a candidate client for the FL group;
Wherein Subramanya teaches receiving an indication of a second NF, of the communication network, that is a candidate client for the FL group; (Par. (0169, 0171); receiving information indication candidate node in FL group (FL aggregator) is authorized (not conflicted) and being updated and added to list), (Par. (0185-0186); obtaining information that node satisfies criteria to join candidate list of federated learning group)), (Par. (0185-0186); second NF (list of candidate nodes and plurality joining group)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teaching of Subramanya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of federated learning groups with network functions ad repositories based on joining the group, with the motivation of creating high levels of trustworthiness to protect against attacks, create general security, maintain integrity of data and using candidate list to determine trust for devices in Federated learning group. (Subramanya Par. (0011-0017 and 0056-0057))
In regards to Claim 47, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 46, wherein the registered authorization information includes one or more of the following: an identifier of the FL group owner; one or more identifiers associated with a target machine learning (ML) model for which training is performed by the FL group; and an indication of authorization scope for the FL group. (Par. (0634, 0640); identifier of FL group with member ID and identifier of ML model ( global and local model with address and model information)
In regards to Claim 49, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 47, wherein the indication of authorization scope for the FL group includes indications or identifiers of one or more of the following: one or more allowed requester NF types; one or more allowed provider NF types; one or more allowed requester NF IDs; one or more allowed provider NF IDs; one or more allowed requester NF vendors; one or more allowed provider NF vendors; one or more allowed interoperability IDs; and allowed FL capabilities. (Par. (0579-0582); authorization scope (query request corresponding to characteristic information) with indication of requestor NF type (targeted NFT type)), (Par. (0625-0627); authorization scope (request and determinized authorization based on queries and characteristic information)
In regards to Claim 55, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 46, further comprising: registering in the NRF information about FL capabilities of the first NF; and (Par. (0531-0534) registration to NRF based on FL capabilities)
discovering the one or more further NFs of the FL group via the NRF, based on the information about respective FL capabilities of the further NFs that was registered in the NRF. (Par. (0531-0534 and 0538-0541); discovering the one or more further NFs of the FL group (querying the NF to indicate type associated with FL group) and based on the information about respective FL capabilities (providing FL group ID and determining based on registration request FL capabilities) that was registered in the NRF. (registration and request to NRF based on FL-related information that includes FL capabilities))
In regards to Claim 56, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 46, wherein the registered information associated with the FL group also includes the following: an identifier of the FL group and/or of an FL procedure performed by the FL group; and an analytics identifier. (Par. (0634, 0640); identifier of FL group with member ID))
In regards to Claim 57, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 46, wherein one or more of the following applies: the first NF is a network data analytics function (NWDAF), and the second NF is an NWDAF.(Par. (0523); first NF (first functional entity) is a NWDAF))
In regards to Claim 67, Duan teaches network equipment arranged to implement a first network function (NF) configured to operate as a server of a federated learning (FL) group in a communication network, the network equipment comprising: (Par. (0010 0813-0816); network function (NF) (functionality entity)), (Par. (00550; Network equipment operating client of FL group (network function in FL group), (Par.(0010, 0452, 0850); network equipment (device in 5G network) network function (NF) configured to operate as a server of a federated learning (FL) group in a communication network (entities and users in 5G wireless network with terminal device and server)
communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with at least a network repository function (NRF) of the communication network; and (Par. (0754); interface) (Par. (0523, 0531); NRF in network)
processing circuitry operably coupled to the communication interface circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry and interface circuitry are configured to: (Par. (0146); processor), (Par. (0754); interface)
registering information associated with the FL group in the NRF, (Par. (0531-0534); registering with information to NRF with FL group)
wherein: the FL group includes the first NF and one or more further NFs configured to operations as clients in the FL group, and (Par. (0547-0551); FL group with list of NF), (Par. (0526-0528); NF as client in FL group (NF as user equipment in FL group)
the registered information includes authorization information for additional NFs to join the FL group as clients; (Par. (0624-0632); joining the FL group includes authorization information (authorized request to join corresponding to UE ID, group ID, NF ID etc.), (Par. (0531-0534); registering information (registration request with information) includes authorization information (Group ID))
obtain an indication that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client, (Par. (0032-0034 and 0037-0039); obtaining an indication (receiving a joining response) for second functional entity joining to FL group then determining if allowed to join FL based on identification information))
wherein the obtained indication is based on the registered authorization information; and (Par. (0308-0312); obtained indication (received response) based on registered authorization information (based on identification information) (Par. (0553-0555); indication (response) based on registered authorization information (Group ID)), (Par. (0068-0072); based on the obtained indication (received response based on characteristic information to join FL group)
based on the obtained indication, update the FL group to include the second NF as a client. (Par. (0512-0514); updating characteristic information of the FL group associated with second NF (second functionality entity) based on indication (response)), (Par. (0655-0661); update request and adding to FL group that an NF has joined))
Duan does not explicitly teach receive an indication of a second NF, of the communication network, that is a candidate client for the FL group;
Wherein Subramanya teaches receive an indication of a second NF, of the communication network, that is a candidate client for the FL group; (Par. (0169, 0171); receiving information indication candidate node in FL group (FL aggregator) is authorized (not conflicted) and being updated and added to list), (Par. (0185-0186); obtaining information that node satisfies criteria to join candidate list of federated learning group)), (Par. (0185-0186); second NF (list of candidate nodes and plurality joining group))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teaching of Subramanya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of federated learning groups with network functions ad repositories based on joining the group, with the motivation of creating high levels of trustworthiness to protect against attacks, create general security, maintain integrity of data and using candidate list to determine trust for devices in Federated learning group. (Subramanya Par. (0011-0017 and 0056-0057))
Claim(s) 48 and 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”) and Subramanya et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250139509, hereinafter referred to as “Subramanya”) further in view of Karampatsis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230345297, hereinafter referred to as “Karampatsis”).
In regards to Claim 48, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 46, wherein :the identifier of the FL group owner is an identifier associated with the first NF; and (Par. (0634); group ID of FL group with member ID corresponding to list of NFs))
Duan and Subramanya do not explicitly teach the one or more identifiers associated with the target ML model include one or more of the following: interoperability ID, vendor ID, analytics ID, model filter, model URL, or model ID.
Wherein Karampatsis teaches the one or more identifiers associated with the target ML model include one or more of the following: interoperability ID, vendor ID, analytics ID, model filter, model URL, or model ID. (Par. (0128, 0134); identifier of ML model includes analytic ID)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Subramanya to incorporate the teaching of Karampatsis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of machine learning based on identifiers for authentication, with the motivation of utilizing model identifiers and analytics to enhance the machine learning model and collect data that can detect valid entries to aid in the registration and subscription system. (Karampatsis Par. (0092-0096))
In regards to Claim 59, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 48, Duan further teaches the method of claim 48, wherein the information discovered via the NRF is based on one or more of the following that was registered in the NRF by the first NF: information associated with the FL group, and information about FL capabilities of the first NF. (Par. (0531-0534 and 0538-0541); discovering the one or more further NFs of the FL group (querying the NF to indicate type associated with FL group) and information associated with the FL group, (providing FL group ID and determining based on registration request FL capabilities and registration and request to NRF based on FL-related information that includes FL capabilities))
In regards to Claim 60, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 48, Duan further teaches the method of claim 59, wherein the registered information associated with the FL group includes the following: authorization information for additional NFs to join the FL group as clients; (Par. (0624-0632); joining the FL group includes authorization information (authorized request to join corresponding to UE ID, group ID, NF ID etc.), (Par. (0531-0534); registering information (registration request with information) includes authorization information (Group ID))
one or more of the following: an identifier of the FL group, and an identifier of an FL procedure performed by the FL group; and an analytics identifier. (Par. (0634, 0640); identifier of FL group with member ID)
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”) and Subramanya et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250139509, hereinafter referred to as “Subramanya”) further in view of Norrman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294706, hereinafter referred to as “Norrman”).
In regards to Claim 50, the combination of Duan and Subramanya do not explicitly teach wherein: the indication of the second NF that is the candidate client for the FL group is a notification received from the NRF, based on the first NF's subscription to registration events of candidate clients for the FL group; and the indication that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as the client is one of the following: implicit based on receiving the notification from the NRF, or an explicit authorization token received together with the notification.
Wherein Norrman teaches wherein: the indication of the second NF that is the candidate client for the FL group is a notification received from the NRF, based on the first NF's subscription to registration events of candidate clients for the FL group; and (Par. (0048); indication of the second NF (message of candidate entities that show selected candidate entity being subscriber and authenticated)), (Par. (0070-0072, 0079); a notification received from the NRF, based on the first NF's subscription to registration events of candidate clients (corresponding to message a response is transmitted indicating satisfied criterion for second NF (candidate entities) and second NF (candidate entity) is selected)), (Par. (0046-0048, 0078-0079); based on the first NF's subscription to registration events of candidate clients for the FL group (first request message to entity and selecting candidate entity corresponding to federated learning group and list of entities as candidates from that selection the next candidate entity receives notification (response) for next subset of candidate entities selected).
the indication that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as the client is one of the following: implicit based on receiving the notification from the NRF, or an explicit authorization token received together with the notification. (Par. (0070-0072, 0079); a notification received from the NRF, based on the first NF's subscription to registration events of candidate clients (corresponding to message a response is transmitted indicating satisfied criterion for second NF (candidate entities) and second NF (candidate entity) is selected))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Subramanya to incorporate the teaching of Norrman to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of federated learning groups and registering network functions using identification with NRF, with the motivation of communicating with the NRF to selected candidate network functions based on a criterion to enhance the subscription process and enhance 5G networks. (Norrman Par. (0002-0006, 0048 and 0078-0079))
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”), Subramanya et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250139509, hereinafter referred to as “Subramanya”) and Norrman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220294706, hereinafter referred to as “Norrman”) further in view of Mueck et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240298194, hereinafter referred to as “Mueck”).
In regards to Claim 51, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Duan further teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising, based on the indication that the second NF is authorized the join the FL group: (Par. (0032-0034 and 0037-0039); obtaining an indication (receiving a joining response ) for second functional entity joining to FL group then determining if allowed to join FL based on identification information)
sending, to the second NF, a FL preparation request that includes the following: interoperability information indicating capabilities needed for an NF to participate in the FL group as a client; and (Par. (0813-0816); sending preparation request to second NF (request sent to second functionality entity) interoperability information indicating capabilities needed (determining from second NF (second functionality entity) capabilities (first condition met and characteristic information determine) needed for NF to participate ( supporting FL group before adding second NF (second functionality entity) to allow into FL group))
receiving, from the second NF, an FL preparation response indicating that further NF has accepted the FL preparation request, (Par. (0545, 0553); response or joined accept message from NF to FL group based on request), (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity))
wherein updating the FL group to include the second NF as a client is based on the FL preparation response. (Par. (0553-0558); join accept message to join FL group then update response message and updating of FL group), (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity))
Duan, Subramanya and Norrman do not explicitly teach a second authorization token indicating that the first NF is an authorized server of the FL group; and
Wherein Mueck teaches a second authorization token indicating that the first NF is an authorized server of the FL group; and (Par. (0030-0032); second authorization token (access tokens for authentication), (Par. (0148-0151); indicating that the first NF is an authorized server of the FL group (token used to decide access in federated learning environment), (Par. (0160-0161); token indicating when NF (UE) is verified))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan, Subramanya and Norrman to incorporate the teaching of Mueck to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of machine learning systems and wireless communication between network functions and servers, with the motivation of implementing tokens to enhance the authorization process with layers and allow the service to determine approval based on used tokens. (Mueck Par. (0030))
Claim(s) 52-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”) and Subramanya et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250139509, hereinafter referred to as “Subramanya”) further in view of Khare et al. (U.S No. 12538127, hereinafter referred to as “Khare”).
In regards to Claim 52, the combination of Duan and Subramanya teach the method of claim 46, Subramanya further teaches the indication of the second NF that is a candidate client for the FL group is an FL join request from the second NF; (Par. (0169, 0171); receiving information indication candidate node in FL group (FL aggregator) is authorized (not conflicted) and being updated and added to list), (Par. (0185-0186); obtaining information that node satisfies criteria to join candidate list of federated learning group)), (Par. (0185-0186); second NF (list of candidate nodes and plurality joining group)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teaching of Subramanya to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of federated learning groups with network functions ad repositories based on joining the group, with the motivation of creating high levels of trustworthiness to protect against attacks, create general security, maintain integrity of data and using candidate list to determine trust for devices in Federated learning group. (Subramanya Par. (0011-0017 and 0056-0057))
Duan and Subramanya do not explicitly teach the indication that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client is an authorization token; and the method further comprises, based on the authorization token, sending to the second NF an indication that the FL join request was accepted by the first NF.
Wherein Khare teaches the indication that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client is an authorization token; and (Col. 10 lines 45-67; NF sends token to NRF), Col. 10 lines 5-25; together with the FL join request;(challenge sent to register NF), (Figure 2 labels 202, 204); second NF (plurality of network entities)
the method further comprises, based on the authorization token, sending to the second NF an indication that the FL join request was accepted by the first NF. (Col. 10 lines 45-67; based on the authorization token (receiving and validating token corresponding to challenge) sending to the second NF an indication that the FL join request was accepted ( determine success and registering NF in group))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Subramanya to incorporate the teaching of Khare to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of registering devices using a Network function repository and communicating with network functions, with the motivation of identifying valid network functions that are discovered to be registered based on information to detect attacks and find suspicious activity while utilizing the network function repository associated with the token for authorization purposes. (Khare Col. 9 lines 60-67,Col. 10 lines 1-25 and Col. 10 lines 35-50))
In regards to Claim 53, the combination of Duan and Subramanya do not explicitly teach wherein one or more of the following applies: the authorization token is received from the second NF together with the FL join request; and the authorization token includes at least a portion of the registered authorization information.
Wherein Khare teaches wherein one or more of the following applies: the authorization token is received from the second NF together with the FL join request; and (Col. 10 lines 45-67; NF sends token to NRF), Col. 10 lines 5-25; together with the FL join request;(challenge sent to register NF), (Figure 2 labels 202, 204); second NF (plurality of network entities)
the authorization token includes at least a portion of the registered authorization information. (Col. 10 lines 15-30; token includes identity information, signatures, issuer etc. corresponding registration with NRF))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Subramanya to incorporate the teaching of Khare to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of registering devices using a Network function repository and communicating with network functions, with the motivation of using tokens for authorization to register devices and distinguish failure from authorized network function devices. (Khare Col. 9 lines 60-67,Col. 10 lines 1-25, Col. 10 lines 35-50 an Col. 11 lines 19-28))
In regards to Claim 54, the combination of Duan and Subramanya do not explicitly teach in response to the FL join request: sending to the NRF a request for an authorization token indicating that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client; and receiving the requested authorization token from the NRF.
Wherein Khare teaches in response to the FL join request: sending to the NRF a request for an authorization token indicating that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client; and (Col. 10 lines 5-25; response to the FL join request (challenge sent to register NF), (Col. 10 lines 45-67; sending token of NF), (Figure 2 labels 202, 204); second NF (plurality of network entities)
receiving the requested authorization token from the NRF. (Col. 10 lines 45-67; receiving and validating token corresponding to challenge to determine success after token sent to NRF))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Subramanya to incorporate the teaching of Khare to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of registering devices using a Network function repository and communicating with network functions, with the motivation of using tokens for authorization to register devices and distinguish failure from authorized network function devices. (Khare Col. 9 lines 60-67,Col. 10 lines 1-25, Col. 10 lines 35-50 an Col. 11 lines 19-28))
Claim(s) 58, 66 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”) further in view of Mueck et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240298194, hereinafter referred to as “Mueck”).
In regards to Claim 58, Duan teaches a method for a second network function (NF) configured to operate as a client of a federated learning (FL) group in a communication network, the method comprising: (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity)),(Par. (0523-0525); federated learning group with network function), (Par. (0497); network function with FL group), (Par. (0850); server in network)
performing a first set of operations or a second set of operations, wherein the first set of operations includes: (Par. (0473-0475); set of operations on FL group on first and second functionality entity)
registering information about FL capabilities of the second NF, in a network repository function (NRF) of the communication network; (Par. (0531-0534); registering information to NRF corresponding to capabilities of FL group)
receiving, from a first NF configured to operate as a server of the FL group, an FL preparation request that includes the following: (Par. (0102-0108); sending and receiving to first NF (first functionality entity) a request associated with FL group)
interoperability information indicating capabilities needed for an NF to participate in the FL group as a client, and (Par. (0813-0816); interoperability information indicating capabilities needed (determining from NF (functionality entity) capabilities (first condition met and characteristic information determine) needed for NF to participate (supporting FL group before adding second NF (functionality entity) to allow into FL group))
sending, to the first NF, an FL preparation response indicating that the second NF accepted the FL preparation request; and (Par. (0545, 0553); response or joined accept message from NF to FL group based on request), (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity))
wherein the second set of operations includes: discovering the following information via the NRF: the FL group, and the first NF as server of the FL group; Par. (0531-0534 and 0538-0541); discovering information via the NRF: the FL group (querying the NF to indicate type associated with FL group) and the first NF as server of the FL group (providing FL group ID and determining based on registration request FL capabilities)
sending an FL join request to the first NF; and (Par. (0109); sending join request to first NF (first functionality entity))
receiving from the first NF an indication that the first NF accepted the FL join request. (Par. (0545, 0553); response or joined accept message from NF to FL group based on request and determining information and identification))
Duan does not explicitly teach a second authorization token indicating that the first NF is an authorized server of the FL group;
Wherein Mueck teaches a second authorization token indicating that the first NF is an authorized server of the FL group; (Par. (0030-0032); second authorization token (access tokens for authentication), (Par. (0148-0151); indicating that the first NF is an authorized server of the FL group (token used to decide access in federated learning environment), (Par. (0160-0161); token indicating when NF (UE) is verified))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teaching of Mueck to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of machine learning systems and wireless communication between network functions and servers, with the motivation of implementing tokens to enhance the authorization process with layers and allow the service to determine approval based on used tokens. (Mueck Par. (0030))
In regards to Claim 66, the combination of Duan and Mueck teach the method of claim 58, Duan further teaches the method of claim 58, wherein one or more of the following applies: the first NF is a network data analytics function (NWDAF), and the second NF is an NWDAF. (Par. (0523); first NF (first functional entity) is a NWDAF))
In regards to Claim 68, the combination of Duan and Mueck teach the method of claim 58, Duan further teaches network equipment arranged to implement a second network function (NF) configured to operate as a client of a federated learning (FL) group in a communication network, the network equipment comprising: (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity)), (Par. (00550; Network equipment operating client of FL group (network function in FL group), (Par.(0010, 0452); network equipment (device in 5G network) second network function (NF) configured to operate as a client of a federated learning (FL) group in a communication network (entities and users in 5G wireless network with terminal device)
communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with at least a second NF and (Par. (0754); interface) (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity)
a network repository function (NRF) of the communication network; and (Par. (0523); NRF)
processing circuitry operably coupled to the communication interface circuitry, (Par. (0146); processor), (Par. (0754); interface)
wherein the processing circuitry and interface circuitry are configured to perform the method of claim 58.(Par. (0146); processor), (Par. (0754); interface)
Claim(s) 61-62 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”) and Mueck et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240298194, hereinafter referred to as “Mueck”) further in view of Khare et al. (U.S No. 12538127, hereinafter referred to as “Khare”).
In regards to Claim 61, the combination of Duan and Mueck do not explicitly teach sending to the NRF a request for an authorization token indicating that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client; and receiving the requested authorization token from the NRF, wherein the received authorization token is included with the FL join request.
Wherein Khare teaches sending to the NRF a request for an authorization token indicating that the second NF is authorized to join the FL group as a client; and (Col. 10 lines 5-25; response to the FL join request (challenge sent to register NF), (Col. 10 lines 45-67; sending token of NF), (Figure 2 labels 202, 204); second NF (plurality of network entities))
receiving the requested authorization token from the NRF, (Col. 10 lines 45-67; receiving and validating token corresponding to challenge to determine success after token sent to NRF))
wherein the received authorization token is included with the FL join request. (Col. 10 lines 5-25 and Col. 10 lines 45-67; transmitted token corresponding to registration challenge to NRF))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Subramanya to incorporate the teaching of Khare to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of registering devices using a Network function repository and communicating with network functions, with the motivation of identifying valid network functions that are discovered to be registered based on information to detect attacks and find suspicious activity while utilizing the network function repository associated with the token for authorization purposes. (Khare Col. 9 lines 60-67,Col. 10 lines 1-25 and Col. 10 lines 35-50))
In regards to Claim 62, the combination of Duan and Mueck teach the method of claim 58, Duan further teaches the method of claim 61, the registered authorization information includes one or more of the following: an identifier of the FL group owner; one or more identifiers associated with a target machine learning (ML) model for which training is performed by the FL group; and an indication of authorization scope for the FL group. (Par. (0634, 0640); identifier of FL group with member ID and identifier of ML model ( global and local model with address and model information))
Duan and Mueck do not explicitly teach wherein: the authorization token is based on authorization information associated with the FL group that was registered in the NRF by the first NF; and
Wherein Khare teaches wherein: the authorization token is based on authorization information associated with the FL group that was registered in the NRF by the first NF; and (Col. 10 lines 15-30; token includes authorization information associated with the FL group (identity information, signatures, issuer etc. corresponding registration with NRF))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Mueck to incorporate the teaching of Khare to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of registering devices using a Network function repository and communicating with network functions, with the motivation of using tokens for authorization to register devices and distinguish failure from authorized network function devices. (Khare Col. 9 lines 60-67,Col. 10 lines 1-25, Col. 10 lines 35-50 an Col. 11 lines 19-28))
In regards to Claim 64, the combination of Duan and Mueck teach the method of claim 58, Duan further teaches the method of claim 62, wherein the indication of authorization scope for the FL group includes indications or identifiers of one or more of the following: one or more allowed requester NF types; one or more allowed provider NF types; one or more allowed requester NF IDs; one or more allowed provider NF IDs; one or more allowed requester NF vendors; one or more allowed provider NF vendors; one or more allowed interoperability IDs; and allowed FL capabilities. (Par. (0579-0582); authorization scope (query request corresponding to characteristic information) with indication of requestor NF type (targeted NFT type)), (Par. (0625-0627); authorization scope (request and determinized authorization based on queries and characteristic information)
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”), Mueck et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240298194, hereinafter referred to as “Mueck”) and Khare et al. (U.S No. 12538127, hereinafter referred to as “Khare”) further in view of Karampatsis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230345297, hereinafter referred to as “Karampatsis”).
In regards to Claim 63, the combination of Duan and Mueck teach the method of claim 58, Duan further teaches the method of claim 62, wherein: the identifier of the FL group owner is an identifier associated with the first NF; and (Par. (0634); group ID of FL group with member ID corresponding to list of NFs))
Duan, Mueck and Khare do not explicitly teach the one or more identifiers associated with the target ML model include one or more of the following: interoperability ID, vendor ID, analytics ID, model filter, model URL, and model ID.
Wherein Karampatsis teaches the one or more identifiers associated with the target ML model include one or more of the following: interoperability ID, vendor ID, analytics ID, model filter, model URL, and model ID. (Par. (0128, 0134); identifier of ML model includes analytic ID))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan, Mueck and Khare to incorporate the teaching of Karampatsis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of machine learning based on identifiers for authentication, with the motivation of utilizing model identifiers and analytics o enhance the machine learning model and collect data that can detect valid entries to aid in the registration and subscription system. (Karampatsis Par. (0092-0096))
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240396811, hereinafter referred to as “Duan”), Mueck et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240298194, hereinafter referred to as “Mueck”) further in view of Schiatti et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210067339, hereinafter referred to as “Schiatti”).
In regards to Claim 65, the combination of Duan and Mueck teach the method of claim 58, Duan further teaches the method of claim 58, wherein: the first set of operations also includes determining whether to join the FL group as a client based on the following information: (Par. (0624-0632); determining to join FL group based on group ID and authorization request))
the FL preparation response indicating that the second NF accepted the FL preparation request is based on the determination. (Par. (0545, 0553); response or joined accept message from NF to FL group based on request and determining information and identification), (Par. (0813-0816); second NF (second functionality entity))
Duan does not explicitly teach the second authorization token, and a comparison of the interoperability information to corresponding FL capabilities of the second NF; and
Wherein Mueck teaches the second authorization token, and (Par. (0030-0032); second authorization token (access tokens for authentication))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teaching of Mueck to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of machine learning systems and wireless communication between network functions and servers, with the motivation of implementing tokens to enhance the authorization process with layers and allow the service to determine approval based on used tokens. (Mueck Par. (0030))
Duan and Mueck do not explicitly teach a comparison of the interoperability information to corresponding FL capabilities of the second NF; and
Wherein Schiatti teaches a comparison of the interoperability information to corresponding FL capabilities of the second NF; and (Par. (0065); comparing interoperability information (comparing metrics) of FL group and nodes to corresponding FL capabilities of the second NF (comparing to criteria of nodes))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan and Mueck to incorporate the teaching of Schiatti to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of federated learning systems and token based authentication, with the motivation of preventing bottlenecking, data security threats and technical challenges as well as other inefficiencies in federated learning systems by using tokens to detect participating nodes in the machine learning network. (Schiatti Par. (0002))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MU; Qin (U.S Pub. No. 20240023082) “DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM”. Considered this reference because it addressed federated learning groups and subscribing network functions in network based on candidate data.
Ouyang; Ye (U.S Pub. No. 0230146099 ) “FEDERATED LEARNING IN TELECOM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM”. Considered this application because it relates to federated learning groups and registering devices based on identifiable information.
Lee; Soohwan (U.S Pub. No. 20220108214) “MANAGEMENT METHOD OF MACHINE LEARNING MODEL FOR NETWORK DATA ANALYTICS FUNCTION DEVICE”. Considered this application because it addressed network function, network function repositories and NWDAF in machine learning network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights