Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 05/28/2021, in which, claim(s) 1-22 are pending. Claim(s) 1 and 22 are independent.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/30/2021 are accepted by The Examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 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 and claim 22 recite acronyms “AI” and “ID”. Claim 21 recite acronyms “KYC” and “SAP”. The acronyms need to be spelled out when recited in the claim for the very first time.
Claim 1 and claim 22 recite “smart ID”, claim 7 recites “SmartID”, claim 10 recites “Smart ID” and claim 21 recites “SmartID” and “Smartchain ID”. Please clarify if all these terms point to the same thing.
Claim 4 limitation “biometric data associated with the user” should be “biometric data associated with a user” since the term “user” is mentioned the first time.
Claim 5 recites “wherein information passing between nodes is subjected to review by a quantum resistant algorithm”. It cannot be ascertained from the scope of the claim what the metes and bounds of the terms are, how an algorithm “review” information?
Claim 6 limitation “between the host of the information” should be “between a host of the information” since the term “host” is mentioned the first time.
Claim 7 limitation “wherein the user can tell the SmartID what information can be accessed” should be “wherein a user can tell the SmartID what information can be accessed” since the term “user” is mentioned the first time.
Claim 8 recites “wherein separate AI agents are tasked with tasks”. It is indefinite with the limitation “tasked with tasks”.
Claim 11 limitation is missing an ending period “.”.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the central global server comprises a central network and a plurality of distributed nodes”. It is beyond understanding how a server comprises a network.
Claim 13 limitation is missing an ending period “.”.
Claim 17 recites “in the networkd”. It cannot be ascertained from the scope of the claim what the metes and bounds of the terms are.
Claim 19 recites “to perform non-vital actions based on use cases”. It cannot be ascertained from the scope of the claim what the metes and bounds of the terms are.
Claim 20 recites “to parse structured/unstructured data into a graph database or other appropriate database”. It cannot be ascertained from the scope of the claim what the metes and bounds of the terms are.
Claim 21 recites “to get data from 3rd party sources such as SAP or Fiserv” and “data is passed through a high speed network using, e.g., a Python socket library”. It cannot be ascertained from the scope of the claim what the metes and bounds of the terms are.
Claim 22 recites “A. A method for passing information between users”. Please correct the typo “A. A”.
Claims 2-21 don't cure the deficiency of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 recites “A Hyper connected network” in the preamble, “inter connected nodes” and “central server”, in the claim body. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed network lacks a structural component because the nodes and the server can be implemented as software only. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter for lack of a hardware component. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 such as “inter connected hardware nodes”.
Claims 2-21 don't cure the deficiency of Claim 1, e.g., the API and module recited in claim 21 can be implemented as software also. Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for their dependency upon Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-15, 17, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 22, Gilliard discloses
directing packets of information associated with smart IDs to correct destinations within the network ([0059], “messaging bus 204 transmits packets to each destination for which a rule specifies that such packets should be transmitted. Rules direct packets to destinations by specifying that packets having particular emitter IDs (which are associated with particular applications 214) should be directed to one or more destinations”),
wherein the smart ID includes relevant and valid data belonging to each individual using the network, and wherein strips the smart ID of any information that is not relevant to its destination ([0059], “a first rule may specify that a packet from a first application should be directed to the log server 206 and the event server 210 and a second rule may specify that a packet from a second application should be directed to only the log server 206. Messaging bus 204 would transmit packets specifying those emitter ID's accordingly”),
Gilliard does not explicitly teach but Moustafa teaches
delegating, by the central server using Al tasks to master AIs associated with said nodes; the Al associated with a node (claim 9, “identify a plurality of distributed Artificial Intelligence (AI) nodes… and delegate the required computation to one of the plurality of distributed AI nodes”),
Gilliard and Moustafa are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moustafa with the disclosure of Gilliard. The motivation/suggestion would have been to dynamic distribution of computational requirements (Moustafa, [0001]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein the hyper-connected network comprises sub-networks comprising interconnected nodes (Gilliard, see Fig. 2 sub networks 204 205).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein said sub-networks from distinct platforms or systems (Gilliard, see Fig. 2 distinct platforms 205).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein the user can tell the SmartID what information can be accessed based on a system from which a request originates by providing rights to that specific system to access the data through said SmartID (Gilliard, [0095], “particular emitter IDs”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein separate AI agents are tasked with tasks selected from optimizing the infrastructure, cleaning data, and making specific information data available based on the origin of a request for such information (Moustafa, claim 9, “delegate the required computation to one of the plurality of distributed AI nodes”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein information to be passed through the network is aggregated into packets from more than one hosts and associated with a Smart ID before being transmitted through the network (Gilliard, [0095], “direct packets to destinations by specifying that packets having particular emitter IDs (which are associated with particular applications 214) should be directed to one or more destinations”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein said packets are configured to route themselves through the network based on goals assigned to them before entering the network and to pursue these goals adaptively (Gilliard, [0095], “direct packets to destinations by specifying that packets having particular emitter IDs (which are associated with particular applications 214) should be directed to one or more destinations”).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
in the form of a distributed data management system, comprising: a central global server: wherein the central global server comprises a central network and a plurality of distributed nodes. wherein the central global server can communicate with a plurality of ecosystems, wherein the central network is configured to store information of transactions between the plurality of ecosystems and the central global server, wherein each of the plurality of distributed nodes comprises: a plurality of artificial intelligence agents (AI agents), a transaction engine, a network connector for peer-to-peer, and a graphics database, wherein each of the plurality of distributed nodes directly or indirectly communicates with the central network (Gilliard, [0029], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a data management system 200, according to an example. As shown, data management system 200 includes one or more data management (“DM”) servers 202, a messaging bus 204, and packet destinations 205 (also referred to simply as “destinations” herein)”, Moustafa, claim 9, “identify a plurality of distributed Artificial Intelligence (AI) nodes).
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein a plurality of AI agents comprises at least one of a network optimizer (Moustafa, claim 9, “delegate the required computation to one of the plurality of distributed AI nodes”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein at least one of the plurality of distributed nodes is configured to communicate with an ecosystem and to handshake with a new ecosystem (Gilliard, [0036], “to handle packets from which emitters IDs and thus determine which destinations 205 are”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein the plurality of distributed nodes are configured to directly communicate with each other (Gilliard, see Fig. 2 sub networks 204 205).
Regarding Claim 17, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
permit sub networks to make transactions to each other. where each transaction can be analyzed by automated applied programming interfaces of AI agents on nodes in the networkd (Gilliard, see Fig. 2 sub networks 204 205, Moustafa, claim 9, “identify a plurality of distributed Artificial Intelligence (AI) nodes).
Regarding Claim 20, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa teaches
wherein at least one node comprises a transaction engine to parse structured/unstructured data into a graph database or other appropriate database (Gilliard, [0041], “storing information found in packets into a database”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of Weinreb et al. (US 2019/0188247 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Weinreb teaches
wherein said smart ID includes biometric data associated with the user ([0107], “a biometric identifier (e.g., a finger print, a voice print, a retina scan, a face scan)”),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Weinreb are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weinreb with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been to include a security subcomponent that facilitates system security (Weinreb, [0107]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of Mousseau et al. (US 2019/0121989 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Mousseau teaches
wherein information passing between nodes is subjected to review by a quantum resistant algorithm ([0183], “to protect the files using some advanced cryptographic solution like a Quantum-safe encryption algorithm” as a quantum resistant algorithm),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Mousseau are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mousseau with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been to protect the files using some advanced cryptographic solution (Mousseau, [0183]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Mousseau teaches
wherein transfer of information between nodes is through a secure tunnel with quantum-safe encryption which provides an encrypted link between the host of the information and its destination ([0183], “to protect the files using some advanced cryptographic solution like a Quantum-safe encryption algorithm” as a quantum resistant algorithm),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Mousseau are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mousseau with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been to protect the files using some advanced cryptographic solution (Mousseau, [0183]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of Coulmeau et al. (US 2020/0304290 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Coulmeau teaches
wherein AI agents check whether information being supplied is being used for legal purposes ([0006], “Other data, generated by “open world” or “cabin” (passengers, freight) computers are also used and exchanged over networks, between the ground and the aircraft and stored for administrative and/or commercial and/or legal purposes… exploited by big-data/artificial-intelligence technologies”),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Coulmeau are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coulmeau with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been for continuous improvement of the performance (Coulmeau, [0006]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of Brumley, II et al. (US 2015/0207562 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Brumley, II teaches
which is in the form of a hybrid of the distributed and decentralized networks within a mesh network, where each node can be treated as a master node when that node distributes the data information in a private mesh network ([0008], “using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms to sense, predict, and infer network conditions, configured to dynamically manage transmission of information between communications nodes interconnected via a hybrid mesh network topology”),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Brumley, II are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brumley, II with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been to dynamically manage transmission of information between communications nodes (Brumley, II, [0008]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of Kwatra et al. (US 2020/0286084 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Kwatra teaches
wherein whenever a transaction occurs, each relevant node connected into the network is updated with that transaction and a ledger will be maintained on each node ([0062], “to submit the transaction to the ordering node service 284 to update the ledger”),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Kwatra are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kwatra with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been to analyzing and modifying endorsement policies in smart contracts of blockchain systems (Kwatra, [0001]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of Enguehard et al. (US 2020/0389426 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but Enguehard teaches
one or more master nodes and one or more secondary nodes, wherein the master nodes linked to an entire ecosystem and has rules of the Al agents and other policies, and wherein the secondary nodes can be configured to perform non-vital actions based on use cases ([0018-0023], “Some additional examples of use cases of an intent-based network:… and artificial intelligence agents running in the network can continuously monitor and analyze network traffic and connections, compare activity against pre-defined intents such as application performance or security policies”),
Gilliard, Moustafa and Enguehard are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Enguehard with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been for network policy enforcement (Enguehard, [0001]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliard et al. (US 2017/0118310 A1) in view of Moustafa et al. (US 2020/0301743 A1) further in view of LaFever et al. (US 2018/0307859 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa does not explicitly teach but LaFever teaches
an API (application programming interface) to receive user data from banks ([0261], “Banking”, [0585], “API calls”);
a module to clean the data; a module to preprocess the data ([0170], “identify the Data Subjects and Personal Data from “cleansed” data”);
cryptographic encryption to create SmartID for end users ([0160], “use Dynamic Anonymity-defined procedures to obscure, encrypt”);
storing data in centralized database (Smartchain ID and KYC rating) ([0122], “data elements contained in one or more databases”);
callback hook to send Smartchain ID back to banks ([0261], “Banking”, [0585], “API calls”);
API to get KYC data of a user from bank; Cleaning data using a data cleaning module; preprocessing the data using a preprocessing module ([0170], “identify the Data Subjects and Personal Data from “cleansed” data”, [0261], “Banking”, [0585], “API calls”);
an API to get data from government databases ([0261], “Banking”, [0585], “API calls”);
an API to get data from social media ([0261], “Banking”, [0585], “API calls”);
an API to get data from 3rd party sources such as SAP or Fiserv ([0261], “Banking, Brokerage, etc”, [0585], “API calls”);
cleaning data using the data cleaning module; preprocessing the data using the preprocessing nodule ([0170], “identify the Data Subjects and Personal Data from “cleansed” data”);
storing user related data in a distributed database ([0122], “data elements contained in one or more databases”);
an API to get a Smartchain ID strength rating ([0261], “Banking, Brokerage, etc.”, [0585], “API calls”);
an API to get the Smartchain ID financial rating ([0261], “Banking, Brokerage, etc.”, [0585], “API calls”);
a socket library implemented to use data transfer protocol ([0576], “small library that transparently intercepts API calls”);
a module (Machine Learning (ML) models) to check regulations and policies for data communication ([0269], “Fraud detection”);
a module (ML models) for real time fraud detection ([0269], “Fraud detection”);
a module (ML models) for Anti-Money Laundering (payments) ([0269], “Fraud detection”);
an API to send a report to regulatory institutes ([0261], “Banking, Brokerage, etc”, [0585], “API calls”);
a Quantum resistant cryptography to encrypt data ([0160], “use Dynamic Anonymity-defined procedures to obscure, encrypt”);
whereby data is passed through a high speed network using, e.g., a Python socket library ([0594], “massive parallelism and speed”);
data is decrypted at the receivers end; and transactional details updated at both senders and receivers ends ([0417], “be connected to the Trusted Party in order to decrypt the data”),
Gilliard, Moustafa and LaFever are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LaFever with the combined teaching of Gilliard and Moustafa. The motivation/suggestion would have been to improving data security, privacy, and accuracy (LaFever, [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights