DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-26, 28, 30, 32-33, 35 and 37 remain pending in the application. Claim 37 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith et al. (US Pub. 2019/0140919) in view of Vandikas et al. (US Pub. 2022/0052925) and further in view of Chawla et al. (US Pub. 2022/0343167).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 9-10)
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and, thus, falls within the statutory category of a machine under Step 1. Office Action, June 19, 2025, Page 14.
Turning to Prong One of Step 2A, judicial exceptions are identified when a claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a) identifies the following groupings of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. The Office Action alleges the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. The Applicant traverses this assertion. Claim 1 is clearly directed to a unique apparatus with machine components that cooperate to effectively analyze control deployment and utilization of trained machine learning models that are validated based on attestation score corresponding to a security level of the model for deployment or execution in an edge network environment (e.g., for vehicle to vehicle (V2V) networks, etc.). See Application i-1[0048], i-1[0209]. By utilizing an attestation score corresponding to security level, this validation prevents malicious and/or unauthorized use of the trained models by preventing sharing of the models, for example. Therefore, the apparatus having machine components of claim 1 is not a mental process and, thus, does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it. Accordingly, the claims do not need to proceed through the full analysis herein as their eligibility is self-evident. See MPEP § 2106.06.
Further, the USPTO's August 4, 2025, memorandum on evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 expressly cautions examiners not to expand the "mental process" grouping to encompass claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims under 35 US. C. §JOI (Aug. 4, 2025), pp. 2-3. The memorandum also reminds that a subject matter eligibility rejection should only be made when it is more likely than not (i.e., by more than a 50% likelihood) that the claim is ineligible. Id at p. 5. Here, the present claims recite operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including preventing the sharing of a trained model across an edge environment based on an attestation score corresponding to a security level of the model. The human mind is not equipped to enforce propagation controls across distributed edge appliances, nor to calculate attestation scores derived from multiple appliances in a networked environment. Accordingly, consistent with the USPTO's 2025 memorandum, the claims do not recite a "mental process" and should not be characterized as abstract ideas.
In response
As stated in the 101 rejections section below and in the previous Office Action, the claimed limitations clearly recite mental processes since the claim reciting the steps of “determine an attestation score of the model received at a first appliance, the attestation score calculated based on …”, “compare the attestation score to a threshold” and “validate the model based on the comparison of the attestation score to the threshold”. These steps are based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting “processor circuit” (or machine components as argued) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a score for the model based on two other scores, “compare” in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing the two set of data values such as the determined score and a threshold, and “validate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is sufficient based on the comparison of the score to the threshold.
The Applicant argued that “the apparatus having machine components of claim 1 is not a mental process”. However, limitations regarding whether the judicial exception is/is not integrated into a practical application based on the additional limitations, or applying the judicial exception using generic computer components or algorithm are evaluated under Steps 2A, prong 2 and 2B.
Further, the amended limitation “prevent sharing of the model throughout the edge environment when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “prevent sharing …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether to share an information (or controlling a process of sharing an information) with others based on some factors.
Therefore, the claim does recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues (pages 10-11)
Furthermore, even if claim 1 does recite an abstract idea (a point to which the Applicant does not agree), the abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical application and, thus, satisfies Prong Two of Step 2A. In particular, any alleged abstract idea is clearly integrated into an apparatus that includes at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to determine an attestation score of the model at a first appliance, the attestation score calculated based on (i) a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and (ii) a second local attestation score calculated a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance, wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model ... prevent sharing of the model throughout the edge environment when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold. Thus, claim 1 clearly recites specific machine components and their relationships in the field of validating trained machine learning models and preventing sharing of the model when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold. Accordingly, preventing sharing of a model based on a security level of the model not satisfying a threshold is a practical application. As such, any alleged abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical application and satisfies Prong 2 of Step 2A. For example, like the patent eligible claim 2 of Example 37 (Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface) provided by the USPTO, claim 1 "is not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory." Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107 .pdf (emphasis added). See also July 2024 Update at page 58,136 (describing that "USPTO guidance explains that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations"). The human mind cannot prevent sharing of a model.
In response
As explained above, limitation “prevent sharing of the model throughout the edge environment when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Further, the claim invention is related to a process of validating a model, wherein, the process of “validating a model” can be performed in a human mind, for example, the user can determine if a model is sufficient based on the factors such as accuracy, safety, cost, security, comparing, etc., The Applicant argued that the abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical Application because the claim recites specific machine components to validate the model. However, the claim does not recite how the “specific machine components” is used or operated to determine the attestation scores or to validate the model. The claim only recites using appliances/machine components as the tool to perform the mental process of “validating the model”, an additional element which by MPEP 2106.05 (f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea (validate the model) itself.
Applicant argues (page 11)
Moreover, the elements of the claim provide significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 satisfies Steps 2A and 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims are directed to an apparatus that is patent eligible subject matter. Further, claims 11 and 24 and their dependent claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Withdrawal of the §101 rejections is respectfully requested.
In response
As stated in the 101 rejections below, Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of “a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance”, and “a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of “wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-26, 28, 30, 32-33, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 11 and 24 are rejected for reciting a limitation of “the model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-10, 33, 35 and 37 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, namely claim 1.
Claims 12-23 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, namely claim 11.
Claims 25-26, 28, 30 and 32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, namely claim 24.
Claim 15 is rejected for reciting a limitation of “a number of scores”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-26, 28, 30, 32-33, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determine an attestation score of the model at a first appliance, the attestation score calculated based on …”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a score for the model based on two other scores.
The limitation of “compare the attestation score to a threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “compare” in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing the two set of data values.
The limitation of “validate the model based on the comparison of the attestation score to the threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “validate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is sufficient based on the comparison of the score to a threshold.
The limitation of “prevent sharing of the model throughout the edge environment when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “prevent sharing …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether to share an information (or controlling a process of sharing an information) based on some factors.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “An apparatus”, “at least one processor circuit” and “a trained model”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance”, and “a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance”. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of calculating/determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An apparatus”, “at least one processor circuit” and “a trained model” to perform the “determining, comparing and validating” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance”, and “a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of “wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determine the attestation score based on a blockchain associated with the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a score for the model using data associated with a blockchain.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine the attestation score”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine the attestation score” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “validate the model based on the blockchain”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “validate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is sufficient based on data associated with a blockchain.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to request a blockchain attestation of the model via the blockchain to validate …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of validate) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to request a blockchain attestation of the model via the blockchain to validate …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores stored in the blockchain” recites mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance is to calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores stored in the blockchain”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of calculating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance is to calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores stored in the blockchain” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determine whether the model is improving or degrading”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is improving based on observing the performance of the model.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “authenticate the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “authenticate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user validating the model by observing authentication information associated with the model before executing or deploying the model.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to authenticate …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of authenticating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to authenticate …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “verify hardware associated with an appliance that trained or validated the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “verify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing authentication information associated with the hardware and confirming that it is correct.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of verifying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “verify signatures of sensors providing data to train the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “verify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing signatures associated with the sensors and confirming that they are correct.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of verifying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the first appliance is part of a first vehicle, and the second appliance is part of a second vehicle, and the third appliance is part of a third vehicle, the first, second and third vehicles associated with a vehicle to everything (V2X) network of the edge environment”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the first appliance is part of a first vehicle, and the second appliance is part of a second vehicle, and the third appliance is part of a third vehicle, the first, second and third vehicles associated with a vehicle to everything (V2X) network of the edge environment” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the first and second appliances are part of different edge nodes of the edge environment”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the first and second appliances are part of different edge nodes of the edge environment” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determine an attestation score of the model at a first appliance, the attestation score calculated based on …”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a score for the model based on two other scores.
The limitation of “validate the model based on a comparison of the attestation score to a threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “validate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is sufficient based on the comparison of the score to a threshold.
The limitation of “prevent sharing of the model throughout the edge environment when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “prevent sharing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether to share an information (or controlling a process of sharing an information) based on some factors.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium”, “at least one processor circuit” and “a trained model”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance”, and “a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance”. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of calculating/determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium”, “at least one processor circuit” and “a trained model” to perform the “determining, comparing and validating” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance”, and “a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element of “wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the attestation score is determined from a blockchain associated with the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining a score for the model using data associated with a blockchain.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the model is validated based on the blockchain”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “validate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is sufficient based on data associated with a blockchain.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores stored in the blockchain” recites mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the attestation score is calculated based on a number of scores in the blockchain exceeding a threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining the score for the model using certain data values.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determine whether the model is improving or degrading”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is improving based on observing the performance of the model.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “the at least one processor is further caused to train the model at a fourth appliance of the edge environment”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “the at least one processor is further caused to train the model at a fourth appliance of the edge environment” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “authenticate software associated with the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “authenticate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing authentication information associated with the software and confirming that it is correct.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “the software is utilized to train the model”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “the software is utilized to train the model” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “authenticate hardware associated with an appliance that trained or validated the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “authenticate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing authentication information associated with the hardware and confirming that it is correct.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “authenticating signatures of sensors providing data to train the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “authenticating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing signatures associated with the sensors and confirming that they are correct.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “select at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having sufficient accuracy”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “select” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing the accuracy information of the appliances to select one.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “select at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having a number of iterations greater than a threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “select” in the context of this claim encompasses the user based on whether the number of iterations reaching a number of times, determining to select an appliance.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 11 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 12 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “validation of the model with a fourth appliance that is associated with the blockchain”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “validate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining whether the model is sufficient based on data associated with a blockchain.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “authenticating a signature of sensor data associated with the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “authenticating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing signatures associated with the sensors and confirming that they are correct.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the attestation score is calculated based on comparing a number of peer appliances that validated the model with a number of peer appliances that did not validate the model”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on the comparison of the two set of data, determines the score for the model.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “selecting at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model having sufficient accuracy or the model being deployed in similar conditions to that being analyzed by the first appliance”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion, or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing the accuracy information of the appliances to select one.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model …”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the first and second local attestation scores are retrieved from a blockchain” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and/or transmitting, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “the first and second local attestation scores are retrieved from a blockchain” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of “wherein the degree of predicted trustworthiness of the model corresponds to a trustworthiness of at least one of edge nodes or devices that trained the model”. This limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the degree of predicted trustworthiness of the model corresponds to a trustworthiness of at least one of edge nodes or devices that trained the model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites an apparatus which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “deploy the model based on the attestation score satisfying the threshold” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “deploy the model based on the attestation score satisfying the threshold” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, 22, 24-25, 32, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Pub. 2019/0140919) in view of Vandikas et al. (US Pub. 2022/0052925) and further in view of Chawla et al. (US Pub. 2022/0343167).
As per claim 1, Smith teaches an apparatus to validate a trained model in an edge environment [paragraph 0027, “methods, configurations, and related apparatuses are disclosed for a rating and validation system, which enables the verification and analysis of specific services and service operations in edge computing deployments”], the apparatus comprising:
machine-readable instructions [paragraph 0219, “one or more computer readable media comprising instructions”]; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine- readable instructions to [paragraph 0219, “one or more computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, techniques, or process”]:
determine an attestation score of the model [Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0043-0044 disclose the edge service providers ESP1, ESP2, edge services ES1.1, ES1.2, ES2.1 … and the respective reputation values 441, 442, ES1.1 reputation …], wherein the attestation score corresponds to a security level of the model [paragraph 0002, “Embodiments described herein generally relate to edge computing and related distributed computing environments, and in particular, to security, verification, and management techniques usable with services operable at edge computing platforms”; paragraphs 0028-0029, “The present techniques and configurations enable customers and other ecosystem entities to establish, identify, and verify edge service reputations. A reputation value or rating may be included as a service level agreement (SLA) criteria when making a selection of a particular edge service provider or system. The present techniques and configurations also allow service telemetry data to contribute to the reputation value or rating as a way of indicating a historical track record of service and service attributes (reliability, availability, security, safety, and the like) … Once a service is available to be deployed, the provider of the service sends out a request for deployment to the validators, so that the service can be added to a list of validated services”; examiner interprets the edge service as a model to be deployed based on the attestation score (reputation value); paragraph 0031, “The present techniques support a variety of edge computing installations, by enabling validated services to be offered to and investigated by application endpoints, which offers an improvement in security and operability”; paragraph 0108, “The technique 1300 concludes with an optional operation 1312 to assign a security level to the component (e.g., based on certification or compliance status)”];
compare the attestation score to a threshold [Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0043-0044 disclose the edge service providers ESP1, ESP2, edge services ES1.1, ES1.2, ES2.1 … and the respective reputation values 441, 442, ES1.1 reputation …; paragraph 0045, “FIG. 5 provides a sequence diagram 500 of operations for requesting and verifying an SLA among a customer 510, an orchestrator 520, and a blockchain or reputation service 530. As shown, a first operation 541 is performed by the customer 510 (e.g., an endpoint consumer or customer device, such as a UE), which requests an SLA from an orchestrator 520 for use with a particular service having a particular reputation attribute. Further, the customer 510 may indicate in this request that a reputation score for an available edge service provider may need to satisfy some minimum value (e.g., at or greater than 0.95) and reputation score for a particular edge service may need to satisfy some minimum value (e.g., at or greater than 0.90)”; examiner interprets “a reputation score for an available edge service provider satisfies some minimum value at or greater than 0.95, and reputation score for a particular edge service satisfies some minimum value at or greater than 0.90” as a threshold; paragraph 0046, “the orchestrator 520 using the requested service criteria to identify applicable service providers and applicable services from a reputation tracking entity. This is shown with an operation 542 to obtain a list of services of a particular service type matching the reputation score (e.g., services having a score at or greater than 0.90) or satisfying other reputation criteria. This is also shown with an operation 543 to obtain a list of service providers matching the reputation score (e.g., services having a reputation at or greater than 0.95)”; It can be seen that the system comparing the reputation score of the service providers and the reputation score of the services to the threshold to identify services having a score at or greater than 0.90 and service providers having a reputation at or greater than 0.95];
validate the model based on the comparison of the attestation score to the threshold [paragraphs 0045-0047, “Based on the reputation data collected by the orchestrator 520 relevant to the requested service(s), the orchestrator 520 may configure, select, or adapt an SLA for the requested service(s), and communicate information regarding this SLA to the customer 510 in operation 544. This SLA may indicate service attributes which match (or provide a best match) of a particular computing function or set of functions provided by an edge service, edge service provider, or other entities”; It can be seen that the services are validated based on the reputation data match with the service requested]; and
prevent sharing of the model throughout the edge environment when the attestation score does not satisfy the threshold [Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0028-0029, “The present techniques and configurations enable customers and other ecosystem entities to establish, identify, and verify edge service reputations. A reputation value or rating may be included as a service level agreement (SLA) criteria when making a selection of a particular edge service provider or system … Once a service is available to be deployed, the provider of the service sends out a request for deployment to the validators, so that the service can be added to a list of validated services; paragraphs 0045-0047, “the orchestrator 520 using the requested service criteria to identify applicable service providers and applicable services from a reputation tracking entity. This is shown with an operation 542 to obtain a list of services of a particular service type matching the reputation score (e.g., services having a score at or greater than 0.90) or satisfying other reputation criteria. This is also shown with an operation 543 to obtain a list of service providers matching the reputation score (e.g., services having a reputation at or greater than 0.95) … Based on the reputation data collected by the orchestrator 520 relevant to the requested service(s), the orchestrator 520 may configure, select, or adapt an SLA for the requested service(s), and communicate information regarding this SLA to the customer 510 in operation 544. This SLA may indicate service attributes which match (or provide a best match) of a particular computing function or set of functions provided by an edge service, edge service provider”; Since the system, based on the received request, identifying only services that matching the reputation scores, then providing services to the customer, it can be seen that any services that having the reputation scores less than the request scores (services having a score at or greater than 0.90 and service providers having a reputation at or greater than 0.95) will not be selected for deployment, thus, preventing sharing the services throughout the edge environment].
Smith does not explicitly teach
a trained model;
determine an attestation score of the model at a first appliance, the attestation score calculated based on (i) a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and (ii) a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance;
Vandikas teaches
a trained model [paragraph 0185, “the model is trained on all training sets from all nodes”];
determine an attestation score of the model received at a first appliance [paragraph 0062, “In some embodiments in this regard, an edge node, after or as part of each round of training, transmits control signaling (e.g., to the server 12 or other edge node(s)) that indicates an accuracy of the local model as trained by the edge node through that round of training”; Here, the other edge node(s) receiving the control signaling are considered analogous to a first appliance. The control signaling indicating an accuracy of the local model is considered analogous to a score of the model. Therefore, this is considered analogous to determine a score of the model received at a first appliance; Since Smith in Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0043-0047, teaches an attestation score of the model/service that corresponds to a security level is determined, while Vandikas teaches the score of the model is determined at a first appliance/node, therefore, the combination of Smith and Vandikas teaches the above claim limitation];
… a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and (ii) a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance [Fig. 1; paragraph 0054, "FIG. 1 shows multiple edge nodes 10-1, 10-2, ... 10-N (e.g., base stations) in one or more edge communication networks (e.g., radio access network(s))"; Paragraph 0015, "The method may further comprise, for each of the one or more rounds of training, receiving, from one or more of the edge nodes, control signaling that indicates an accuracy of the local model at the edge node as trained through the round of training." Here, two of the multiple edge nodes may be considered analogous to a second appliance and a third appliance. The determination of local accuracy scores at one or more edge nodes is therefore considered analogous to a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include determining a score of the model received at a first appliance, a first local score calculated at a second appliance, and a second local score calculated at a third appliance of Vandikas. Doing so would help determining the accuracy of the local models that are trained by the appliances at each round of training (Vandikas, 0010).
Smith and Vandikas do not teach
the attestation score calculated based on (i) a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and (ii) a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance.
Chawla teaches
the attestation score calculated based on (i) a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and (ii) a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance [Fig. 6C, paragraph 0031, “The method may further include receiving, from respective ones of the plurality of worker entities, an accuracy value that measures accuracy of the neural network trained using the master ranked list of features”; paragraph 0157, “The accuracy 636 with the corresponding details of the model is reported back to the master, which averages the accuracy across all workers (block 638) and updates the model (block 640)”. Here, taking an average of multiple accuracy scores calculated at each worker entity is considered analogous to the attestation score calculated based on a first local attestation score calculated at a second appliance different from the first appliance, and a second local attestation score calculated at a third appliance different from the first appliance and the second appliance].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the federated learning method including taking an average of scores from different nodes of Chawla. Doing so would help improving mean model accuracy and minimize accuracy variance (Chawla, 0037).
As per claim 2, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Smith further teaches
determine the attestation score based on a blockchain associated with the model [Fig. 6, paragraph 0048-0050, “the blockchain or reputation service 630 may update an edge service reputation score for the particular edge service (at operation 644) and update an edge service provider reputation score for the service provider associated with the particular edge service”].
As per claim 3, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 2.
Smith further teaches
request a blockchain attestation of the model via the blockchain to validate the model based on the blockchain [Fig. 6, paragraph 0048-0050, “The sequence diagram shows an orchestrator 610 providing a request to an edge service 620, at operation 641, to conduct a particular computing function (task) under a particular SLA (and SLA conditions). The edge service 620 then commences to perform the requested task, at operation 642, for the particular service, and save task statistics, at operation 643, regarding the performance of the tasks to the blockchain or reputation service 630 … The task statistics or other information that is communicated to the blockchain or reputation service 630 may be associated with the execution of the edge service and an associated edge service provider … the blockchain or reputation service 630 may update an edge service reputation score for the particular edge service (at operation 644) and update an edge service provider reputation score for the service provider associated with the particular edge service”].
As per claim 5, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Smith further teaches
determine whether the model is improving or degrading [paragraph 0048, “a sequence diagram 600 of operations for updating scoring for an SLA and a related edge service and service provider, among an orchestrator 610, edge service 620, and a blockchain or reputation service 630. Specifically, the operations for updating scoring may be used to manage and track the results of a service operation on a task-by-task basis performed by the service, such as to increase a reputation score for the edge service 620 or an associated service provider when the edge service 620 successfully performs the task (and, to decrease a reputation score for the edge service 620 or an associated service provider when the task is not performed, performs the task late or not according to a specified condition, etc.)”; examiner interprets a process of determining whether the edge service successfully performs the task or not as whether the model is improving or degrading].
As per claim 9, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Vandikas further teaches
the first appliance is part of a first vehicle, and the second appliance is part of a second vehicle, and the third appliance is part of a third vehicle, the first, second and third vehicles associated with a vehicle to everything (V2X) network of the edge environment [paragraph 0209, “Although the subject matter described herein may be implemented in any appropriate type of system using any suitable components, the embodiments disclosed herein are described in relation to a wireless network”; paragraph 0228, “As used herein, wireless device (WD) refers to a device capable, configured, arranged and/or operable to communicate wirelessly with network nodes and/or other wireless devices ... Examples of a WD include ... a vehicle-mounted wireless terminal device ... A WD may support device-to-device (D2D) communication, for example by implementing a 3GPP standard for side link communication, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), vehicle-to everything (V2X)." In at least one embodiment of Vandikas, the nodes may be vehicle-mounted wireless terminal devices part of a vehicle-to-everything network. This is considered analogous to the first appliance being part of a first vehicle, and the second appliance being part of a second vehicle, and the third appliance being part of a third vehicle, the first, second, and third vehicles associated with a vehicle to everything (V2X) network of the edge environment”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the first appliance is part of a first vehicle, and the second appliance is part of a second vehicle, and the third appliance is part of a third vehicle, the first, second and third vehicles associated with a vehicle to everything (V2X) network of the edge environment of Vandikas. Doing so would help identifying and verifying edge service reputations base on the services to the vehicle such as safety, security, etc., (Smith, 0028)
As per claim 10, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Vandikas further teaches
the first and second appliances are part of different edge nodes of the edge environment [paragraph 0007, “More particularly, some embodiments herein include a method for using federated learning to predict network communication perform a nee at an edge node in an edge communication network”; paragraph 0063, “In some embodiments in this regard, an edge node, after or as part of each round of training, transmits control signaling (e.g., to the server 12 or other edge node(s))”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the first and second appliances are part of different edge nodes of the edge environment of Vandikas. Doing so would help an edge node benefits from the training performed at other edge nodes (Vandikas, 0056).
As per claim 11, Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to [paragraph 0219, “one or more computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, techniques, or process”];
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 17, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 11.
Vandikas further teaches
train the model at a fourth appliance of the edge environment [paragraph 0007, “The method is performed by the edge node and comprises training a local model of network communication performance over one or more rounds of training at the edge node, based on a local training dataset at the edge node and based on multi-node training information received in each round of training. The multi-node training information may comprise information about local models at other respective edge nodes as trained based on local training datasets at the other edge nodes." Here, multiple edge nodes each training a local model are described. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, at least one of these nodes is considered analogous to a fourth appliance of the edge environment training the model”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include training the model at a fourth appliance of the edge environment of Vandikas. Doing so would help predicting network communication performance at the edge node (Vandikas, abstract).
As per claim 22, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 11.
Vandikas further teaches
select at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having sufficient accuracy [paragraph 0015, “The method may further comprise, for each of the one or more rounds of training, receiving, from one or more of the edge nodes, control signaling that indicates an accuracy of the local model at the edge node as trained through the round of training, that indicates whether another round of training is needed or desired at the edge node, and/or that indicates whether any further multi-node training information is needed or desired at the edge node." Here, deciding whether to continue training or request more information from nodes based on their accuracy scores is considered analogous to select at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having sufficient accuracy under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include selecting at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having sufficient accuracy of Vandikas. Doing so would help performing local update for multiple edge nodes (Vandikas, 0012).
As per claim 24, Smith teaches a method of validating a trained model … executing instructions with at least one processor [paragraph 0219, “one or more computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, techniques, or process”];
The remaining limitations of claim 24 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 32, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the method as defined in claim 24.
Vandikas further teaches
selecting, by executing instructions with the at least one processor, at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model having sufficient accuracy or the model being deployed in similar conditions to that being analyzed by the first appliance [paragraph 0205, “Some embodiments exploit site-specific context information associated with the received weights, where for instance the context information indicates characteristics of the site for which a set of weights is received (e.g., deployment environment, number of users, etc.). In this case, then, the central node may selectively consider (or give more weight to) for a given site the sets of weights that come from other sites that have characteristics similar to the sit e's own characteristics." Here, selectively considering weights from sites with similar characteristics to the site of interest is considered analogous to selecting the second appliance based on the second appliance being deployed in similar conditions to that being analyzed by the first appliance”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include selecting at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on at least one of a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having sufficient accuracy of Vandikas. Doing so would help performing local update for multiple edge nodes (Vandikas, 0012).
As per claim 35, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Smith further teaches
the security level of the model corresponds to security level of at least one of edge nodes or devices that trained the model [paragraphs 0028-0029, “The present techniques and configurations enable customers and other ecosystem entities to establish, identify, and verify edge service reputations. A reputation value or rating may be included as a service level agreement (SLA) criteria when making a selection of a particular edge service provider or system. The present techniques and configurations also allow service telemetry data to contribute to the reputation value or rating as a way of indicating a historical track record of service and service attributes (reliability, availability, security, safety, and the like); paragraph 0031, “The present techniques support a variety of edge computing installations, by enabling validated services to be offered to and investigated by application endpoints, which offers an improvement in security and operability”; Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0043-0044 disclose the edge service providers ESP1, ESP2, edge services ES1.1, ES1.2, ES2.1 … and the respective reputation values 441, 442, ES1.1 reputation …; paragraph 0045, “FIG. 5 provides a sequence diagram 500 of operations for requesting and verifying an SLA among a customer 510, an orchestrator 520, and a blockchain or reputation service 530. As shown, a first operation 541 is performed by the customer 510 (e.g., an endpoint consumer or customer device, such as a UE), which requests an SLA from an orchestrator 520 for use with a particular service having a particular reputation attribute. Further, the customer 510 may indicate in this request that a reputation score for an available edge service provider may need to satisfy some minimum value (e.g., at or greater than 0.95) and reputation score for a particular edge service may need to satisfy some minimum value (e.g., at or greater than 0.90)”].
As per claim 37, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Smith further teaches
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to at least one of execute or deploy the model based on the attestation score satisfying the threshold [Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0028-0029, “The present techniques and configurations enable customers and other ecosystem entities to establish, identify, and verify edge service reputations. A reputation value or rating may be included as a service level agreement (SLA) criteria when making a selection of a particular edge service provider or system … Once a service is available to be deployed, the provider of the service sends out a request for deployment to the validators, so that the service can be added to a list of validated services; paragraphs 0045-0047, “the orchestrator 520 using the requested service criteria to identify applicable service providers and applicable services from a reputation tracking entity. This is shown with an operation 542 to obtain a list of services of a particular service type matching the reputation score (e.g., services having a score at or greater than 0.90) or satisfying other reputation criteria. This is also shown with an operation 543 to obtain a list of service providers matching the reputation score (e.g., services having a reputation at or greater than 0.95) … Based on the reputation data collected by the orchestrator 520 relevant to the requested service(s), the orchestrator 520 may configure, select, or adapt an SLA for the requested service(s), and communicate information regarding this SLA to the customer 510 in operation 544. This SLA may indicate service attributes which match (or provide a best match) of a particular computing function or set of functions provided by an edge service, edge service provider”; The system, based on the received request, identifying only services that matching the reputation scores, then providing services to the customer].
Claims 14, 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. and further in view of Yu et al. (US Pub. 2020/0320349).
As per claim 14, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 12.
Chawla further teaches
the attestation score is calculated based on an average of first and second local attestation scores [Fig. 6C, paragraph 0031, “The method may further include receiving, from respective ones of the plurality of worker entities, an accuracy value that measures accuracy of the neuraI network trained using the master ranked list of features”; paragraph 0157, “The accuracy 636 with the corresponding details of the model is reported back to the master, which averages the accuracy across all workers (block 638) and updates the model (block 640)." Here, taking an average of multiple accuracy scores calculated at each worker entity is considered analogous to attestation score is calculated based on an average of first and second local attestation scores”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the attestation score is calculated based on an average of first and second local attestation scores stored in the blockchain of Chawla. Doing so would help improving mean model accuracy and minimize accuracy variance (Chawla, 0037).
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
stored in the blockchain;
Yu teaches
stored in the blockchain [paragraph 0086, "At 1306, the device can a request (e.g., using model update transaction component 104) to a software update management system (e.g., software provider device 108, blockchain system/network116 and/or blockchain system/network 502) for an update to the machine learning model based on a determination that the performance exceeds a defined performance level, wherein the request comprises the training data set, the test data set, and the validation results encrypted in accordance with a defined bloc kc ha in protocol." Here, information relating to model training, testing, validation, and performance are stored in the blockchain].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include storing in the blockchain of Yu. Doing so would help maintaining a desired level of security and privacy (Yu, 0028).
As per claim 26, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the method as defined in claim 25.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
requesting, by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model with a fourth appliance that is associated with the blockchain.
Yu further teaches
requesting, by executing instructions with the at least one processor, validation of the model with a fourth appliance that is associated with the blockchain [paragraph 0086, “At 1306, the device can a request (e.g., using model update transaction component 104) to a software update management system (e.g., software provider device 108, blockchain system/network 116 and/or blockchain system/network502) for an update to the machine learning model based on a determination that the performance exceeds a defined performance level, wherein the request comprises the training data set, the test data set, and the validation results encrypted in accordance with a defined blockchain protocol." Here, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the software update management system is considered analogous to a fourth appliance that is associated with the blockchain. The determination that the performance exceeds a defined performance level with data encrypted in the blockchain is considered analogous to validation of the model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include incorporating a blockchain system into the validation of the model of Yu. Doing so would help maintaining a desired level of security and privacy (Yu, 0028).
As per claim 33, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the method as defined in claim 24.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
the first and second local attestation scores are retrieved from a blockchain.
Yu teaches
the first and second local attestation scores are retrieved from a blockchain [paragraph 0086, “At 1306, the device can a request (e.g., using model update transaction component 104) to a software update management system (e.g., software provider device 108, blockchain system/network 116 and/or blockchain system/network502) for an update to the machine learning model based on a determination that the performance exceeds a defined performance level, wherein the request comprises the training data set, the test data set, and the validation results encrypted in accordance with a defined blockchain protocol." Here, in a combination of Smith (as modified) and Yu, the system using validation results encrypted in a blockchain is considered analogous to retrieving first and second local attestation scores from a block chain].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the first and second local attestation scores are retrieved from a blockchain of Yu. Doing so would help maintaining a desired level of security and privacy (Yu, 0028).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. in view of Yu et al. and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. 2022/0129789).
As per claim 4, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 2.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance is to calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores stored in the blockchain.
Yu teaches
stored in the blockchain [paragraph 0086, "At 1306, the device can a request (e.g., using model update transaction component 104) to a software update management system (e.g., software provider device 108, blockchain system/network116 and/or blockchain system/network 502) for an update to the machine learning model based on a determination that the performance exceeds a defined performance level, wherein the request comprises the training data set, the test data set, and the validation results encrypted in accordance with a defined bloc kc ha in protocol." Here, information relating to model training, testing, validation, and performance are stored in the blockchain].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include storing in the blockchain of Yu. Doing so would help maintaining a desired level of security and privacy (Yu, 0028).
Smith, Vandikas, Chawla and Yu do not teach
at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance is to calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores.
Zhang teaches
at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance is to calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores [paragraph 0053, “The machine learning system may combine the cross-validation scores for each training procedure to generate an overall cross-validation score for the machine learning model. The overall cross validation score may include, for example, an average cross-validation score (e.g., across all training procedures)." Here, the overall cross-validation score including an average cross validation score is considered analogous to the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores. In a combination of Vandikas and Zhang, this would be considered analogous to one of the second appliance or third appliance is to calculate the attestation score based on an average of multiple attestation scores”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include using an overall cross-validation score to evaluate the model of Zhang. Doing so would help determining a reliable estimate of model performance (Zhang, 0053, "Cross validation can be used to obtain a reliable estimate of machine learning model performance using only the training set 220, and without using the test set 225, such as by splitting the training set 220 into a number of groups").
Claims 6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. and further in view of Bos et al. (US Pub. 2019/0332814).
As per claim 6, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the apparatus as defined in claim 1.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not explicitly teach
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to authenticate the model.
Bos teaches
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to authenticate the model [paragraph 0044, "The encrypted ML output 125 may be sent using a secure channel where the encrypted ML output 125 is signed. The tamper resistant hardware 130 may then check the signed message and verify that the message is coming from the encrypted machine learning model 120 to prevent using the tamper resistant hardware 130 from unauthorized use." Here, the verification that the message is coming from the encrypted machine learning model is considered analogous to authenticating the model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include authenticating the model of Bos. Doing so would help ensuring privacy for potentially sensitive or valuable data (Bos, 0031, "Embodiments will now be described that illustrate how to protect the machine learning model when it is used on an edge node in an Internet of Things (loT) Network. These embodiments use a small tamper resistant hardware module to assist an encrypted machine learning model. This allows for high-throughput and low-latency evaluation of the machine learning model in order to compute, for instance, classifications while protecting both the privacy of the user generated data as well as the valuable data stored inside the machine learning model").
As per claim 18, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 11.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
the at least one processor is further caused to authenticate software associated with the model.
Bos teaches
the at least one processor is further caused to authenticate software associated with the model [paragraph 0039, "One solution to this problem is to create a secure communication channel between the software computing the machine learning algorithm and the hardware module. This could be achieved by, for instance, signing the messages going to the hardware module. The hardware module checks the signatures and can in this way ensure the messages (decryption requests) are indeed coming from the software running the machine learning model." Here, checking signatures and ensuring that messages are coming from the software running the machine learning model is considered analogous to authenticating software associated with the model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include verifying that messages are from the software running the machine learning model of Bos. Doing so would help preventing malicious misuse of the hardware (Bos, 0038-0039, "However, slightly more functionality is needed to make this secure because as presented a malicious user could simply ask this secure hardware to decrypt the entire encrypted model ... which defeats the entire purpose of this approach ... One solution to this problem is to create a secure communication channel between the software computing the machine learning algorithm and the hardware module").
As per claim 19, Smith, Vandikas, Chawla and Bos teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 18.
Vandikas (as modified) teaches
the software is utilized to train the model [paragraph 0007, "The method is performed by the edge node and comprises training a local model of network communication performance over one or more rounds of training at the edge node"; paragraph 0249, "The features, benefits and/or functions described herein may be implemented in one of the components of UE 2200 or partitioned across multiple components of UE 2200. Further, the features, benefits, and/or functions described herein may be implemented in any combination of hardware, software or firmware." In at least one combination of Vandikas and Bos, the software being authenticated would be software in which the training of the model is implemented].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the software is utilized to train the model of Vandikas. Doing so would help to provide an edge service to an operational device (Smith, 0176).
Claims 7-8, 20-21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. and further in view of Chattopadhyay et al. (US Pub. 2016/0053990).
As per claim 7, Smith, Vandikas, Chawla and Bos teach the apparatus as defined in claim 6.
Smith, Vandikas, Chawla and Bos do not teach
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify hardware associated with an appliance that trained or validated the model.
Chattopadhyay teaches
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify hardware associated with an appliance that trained or validated the model [Fig. 1, paragraph 0033, “In operation 600 sensor data may be received in a BMM from a boiler and enclosure. For example, at least one sensor in the boiler and enclosure may sense the sensor data, and then provide it to the BMM ... Validating the senor data may comprise checking signatures, keys, etc. associated with the sensor data to determine a source for the sensor data, to authenticate the source of the sensor data, etc.”; paragraph 0031, “For example, when an actual BSDM 114 was trained with 65% of a data set randomly selected from three good boilers 102' and three scaled boilers 102', and then the hybrid model was tested using the remaining 35% of the data set, it has been observed that the hybrid model achieved near 100% accuracy in determining the scaling condition of the test boilers 102'." Here, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the sensors which provide boiler data to the BMM (boiler monitoring module) which is used to train and validate a model are considered analogous to hardware associated with an appliance that trained or validated the model. The validation of the sensor data is therefore considered analogous to verifying hardware associated with an appliance that trained or validated the model”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include verifying sensors providing data to a model of Chattopadhyay. Doing so would help ensuring the sensor data is from an authentic source (Chattopadhyay, Paragraph 0033, "Processing the sensor data may comprise, for example ... validating the sensor data to verify that the sensor data was received from an authentic source (e.g., has not been falsified)".
As per claim 8, Smith, Vandikas, Chawla and Bos teach the apparatus as defined in claim 6.
Smith, Vandikas, Chawla and Bos do not teach
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify signatures of sensors providing data to train the model.
Chattopadhyay teaches
one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to verify signatures of sensors providing data to train the model [Fig. 1, paragraph 0033, “In operation 600 sensor data may be received in a BMM from a boiler and enclosure. For example, at least one sensor in the boiler and enclosure may sense the sensor data, and then provide it to the BMM ... Validating the senor data may comprise checking signatures, keys, etc. associated with the sensor data to determine a source for the sensor data, to authenticate the source of the sensor data, etc.”; paragraph 0031, “For example, when an actual BSDM 114 was trained with 65% of a data set randomly selected from three good boilers 102' and three scaled boilers 102', and then the hybrid model was tested using the remaining 35% of the data set, it has been observed that the hybrid model achieved near 100% accuracy in determining the scaling condition of the test boilers 102'." Here, the sensors which provide boiler data which is used to train and validate a model are considered analogous to sensors providing data to train the model. The validation of the sensor data is therefore considered analogous to verifying signatures of sensors providing data to train the model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include verifying sensors providing data to a model of Chattopadhyay. Doing so would help ensuring the sensor data is from an authentic source (Chattopadhyay, Paragraph 0033, "Processing the sensor data may comprise, for example ... validating the sensor data to verify that the sensor data was received from an authentic source (e.g., has not been falsified)".
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 28 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. and further in view of Lingampally et al. (US Patent 10,630,673).
As per claim 15, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 12.
Smith teaches
in the blockchain [Figs. 5-6].
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
the attestation score is calculated based on a number of scores exceeding a threshold.
Lingampally teaches
the attestation score is calculated based on a number of scores exceeding a threshold [Col. 12, lines 4-56, “Reputation analyzer 220 generally receives global reputation data from a plurality of service providers 120 in computing environment 100. In some embodiments, based on the reputation data associated with each of the plurality of service providers 120, reputation analyzer 220 can generate a composite score representing the relative trustworthiness of a composite user identity generated from the user identity information provided by the plurality of service providers 120 … Reputation analyzer 220 may, in some cases, use the global reputation data from each of the plurality of service providers to identify the user identity information to use and the user identity information to exclude from a set of user identities used to generate the composite user identity. To select the user identity information to use and the user identity information to exclude, reputation analyzer 220 can compare the global reputation score of a service provider 120 to a threshold score … If the global reputation score of a service provider 120, which represents a collective judgment of the reputation and trustworthiness of a service provider, meets or exceeds a threshold score maintained by the requesting service provider, reputation analyzer 220 can include the user identity information from that service provider in a subset of user identity information used to generate a composite user identity.”, Col. 8, lines 15-22, “calculate a reputation score associated with the composite user identity based on the reputation scores associated with each service provider 120 that returns user identity information to identity requestor 122. For example, the composite reputation score for a composite 20 user identity may be represented as a summation of the composite reputation scores associated with each service provider 120”; It can be seen that the calculated reputation score is based on the global reputation scores of multiple service providers 120 which exceeds a threshold score].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include the reputation score is calculated based on a number of scores exceeding a threshold of Lingampally. Doing so would help generating a reputation score representing the relative trustworthiness of an entity (Lingampally, Col. 12, lines 8-12).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. and further in view of Ugalde Diaz et al. (US Pub. 2023/0108920).
As per claim 23, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the non-transitory computer readable medium as defined in claim 11.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
the at least one processor is further caused to select at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having a number of iterations greater than a threshold.
Ugalde Diaz teaches
the at least one processor is further caused to select at least one of the second appliance or the third appliance based on a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having a number of iterations greater than a threshold [paragraph 0023, "The testing module 108 may assess the acceptability of a re-trained neural network model, for example, based on a performance metric as stated above, and terminate the re-training process after either a specified number of iterations have been performed or an acceptable performance metric is achieved." Here, a model is considered acceptable after a specified number of iterations have been performed. In at least one combination of Vandikas and Ugalde Diaz, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, this would be considered analogous to selecting the second appliance or the third appliance based on a model of the second appliance or the third appliance having a number of iterations greater than a threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include ensuring a model goes through a certain amount of training iterations of Ugalde Diaz. Doing so would help ensure that the model has undergone sufficient training and is ready to be deployed (Ugalde Diaz, Paragraph 0023, "The testing module 108 may assess the acceptability of a re-trained neural network model, for example, based on a performance metric as stated above, and terminate the re-training process after either a specified number of iterations have been performed or an acceptable performance metric is achieved. Once validated, the neural network models are deemed to be deployment-ready").
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Vandikas et al. in view of Chawla et al. and further in view of Lerner et al. (US Pub. 2020/0349833).
As per claim 30, Smith, Vandikas and Chawla teach the method as defined in claim 24.
Smith, Vandikas and Chawla do not teach
the attestation score is calculated based on comparing a number of peer appliances that validated the model with a number of peer appliances that did not validate the model.
Lerner teaches
the attestation score is calculated based on comparing a number of peer appliances that validated the model with a number of peer appliances that did not validate the model [paragraph 0066, “Next, at operation 410, dynamic speed limits can be predicted based on the real-time data, which is indicative of the current road conditions. As discussed in detail in reference to FIG.1, machine learning algorithm(s) and model(s) may be employed for predicting a dynamic speed limit”; paragraph 0069, "In an embodiment, operation 420 involves verifying the dynamic speed limit predicted at operation 410 using the federated real-time data collected during operation 415. Verifying can be generally described as determining whether there is consensus between the real-time data obtained directly from the vehicle (e.g., operation 405) and the federated real-time data collected from the multiple communication points (e.g., operation 420). In the case where the real-time data converges, it may indicate that the initial dynamic speed limit was appropriately predicted for the current road conditions, and thus can be employed in operating the vehicle. Alternatively, in the case where the real-time data diverges, it may indicate that the initial dynamic speed limit was predicted from bad (e.g., inaccurate) data, and that the initially predicted dynamic speed limit is not verified" Here, the vehicle providing the real-time data and the multiple communication points providing federated real-time data are considered analogous to peer appliances. The determination that the dynamic speed limit was predicted correctly through consensus between the data of the peer appliances is considered analogous to a number of peer appliances validating the model. The determination that the dynamic speed limit was predicted incorrectly through a Jack of consensus between the data of the peer appliances is considered analogous to a number of peer appliances not validating the model. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, this is considered analogous to the attestation score being calculated based on comparing a number of peer appliances that validated the model with a number of peer appliances that did not validate the model.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for verifying validation information for an edge service of Smith to include evaluating the model performance with consensus scoring between data collected from different appliances of Lerner. Doing so would help improving the accuracy of the model (Lerner, Paragraph 0067, "The federated rea I-time data can be used to optimize the dynamic speed limit predicted at operation 401. That is, supplementing real-time data obtained directly by the vehicle at operation 405 with federated real-time data collected during operation 415 can improve the accuracy of the models").
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bacher et al. (US Patent 11,526,610) describes a method for verifying the risk scores calculated by each of the plurality of first security nodes.
Kao et al. (US Pub. 2019/0205542) describes methods for securing software development management and risk assessment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128