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 .
Amendments
This action is in response to amendments filed February 4th, 2026, in which Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15-18 are amended. No claims have been cancelled nor added. The amendments have been entered, and Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-7 and 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation the iteration in the last clause of the respective claim. However, each claim has previously recited both a current iteration and for each iteration, making it indefinite as to which iteration the claim is referring to with the iteration (and thus therefore whether an inference operation is required to be performed for each iteration or not). Note that Claim 8 does not recite a current iteration and thus does not have this issue. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if the inference operation only needs to be performed once, using a selected proper subset of defenses for some iteration.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting and not curing the indefiniteness of a parent claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums, an article of manufacture, thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, the claim further recites a step of dynamically selecting a proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods from a repository of defensive preprocessing methods for a current iteration of processing, wherein a proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods is selected for each iteration of processing which is a mental process step of selecting. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of selecting defensive methods for an inference engine.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements, which comprise initiating processing of examples for training of an inference engine in a system; performing training of the inference engine with a plurality of examples, wherein the training of the inference engine include operation of the selected proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods; and performing an inference operation with the inference engine, including utilizing the selected proper subset of processing defenses for the iteration of processing, which is merely stating to perform the selected defensive methods. This is an example of “mere instructions to apply the abstract idea,” i.e. choosing a defensive strategy and implementing it “only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished” (via MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) and thus is not an improvement in technology nor an integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. It is similar to the “Insignificant application” of “Cutting hair after first determining a hairstyle” in MPEP 2106.05(g), as well. The remaining additional elements of the claim consist of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums having stored thereon executable computer program instructions, which is merely stating to perform the abstract idea using generic computer components, which by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of selecting defensive methods for an inference engine.
Finally, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself because mere instructions to apply an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and there is no nexus between the additional elements.
Claims 2-4 merely recite additional details of the selecting mental process step, but no additional elements, thus no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claims 5 and 6 recite additional mental process steps (augmenting the examples with adversarial examples is determining new examples to add to a set; determining whether the selected subset adversely affects accuracy is a mental process of judgement or observation) but no additional elements, thus no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claim 7 recites only an additional element which specifies the field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place (the system is an autonomous driving system), which by MPEP 2106.05(h) can neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 8-14 recite an apparatus comprising one or more processors and a storage on which to perform the operations recited in Claims 1-7, respectively. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), Claims 8-14 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-7, respectively.
Claims 15-20 recite methods of performing precisely the operations recited in Claims 1-6, respectively, and are thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of those claims, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7; 8, 12-14; 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, US PG Pub 2020/0410335, in view of Kubota, US PG Pub 2023/0016670.
Regarding Claim 1, Gu teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums having stored thereon executable computer program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Gu, [0007], “In other embodiments, a computer program product comprising a computer usable or readable medium having a computer readable program is provided”) comprising: initializing processing of examples (Gu, [0028], “by providing a pre-processor that operates on the input data to detect adversarial inputs and purify those inputs prior to returning runtime or prediction results” & Fig. 1, elements 110, 120, 170) for training of an inference engine in a system (Gu, [0053], “for updating the training dataset, such that the dynamically updated training dataset may be used to update the training of the CNN”); dynamically [applying] defensive preprocessing methods from a repository of defensive preprocessing methods for a current iteration of processing (Gu, Fig. 1, element 170, “Adversarial input detection and purification (AIDAP)” includes several defensive preprocessing methods elements 130, 140, 150, 160) …; performing training of the inference engine with a plurality of examples, wherein the training of the inference engine includes operation of the … defensive preprocessing methods (Gu, [0053], “the purified input and the adversarial input with a correct label may also be provided for updating the training dataset, such that the dynamically updated training dataset may be used to update the training of the CNN”); and performing an inference operation with the inference engine, including utilizing the … preprocessing defenses for the current iteration of processing (Gu, Fig. 1 & [0028], “hardening DL computer models and computer systems from adversarial attacks during runtime, or prediction dime, operation by providing a preprocessor that operates on the input data to detect adversarial inputs and purify those inputs prior to returning runtime or prediction results”).
While Gu teaches applying defensive preprocessing methods, Gu does not teach dynamically selecting a proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods from a repository of defensive preprocessing methods. However, Kubota, in the same field of endeavor, teaches selecting a proper subset of defensive methods (Kubota, Fig. 7, elements S204, “Specify Defense Algorithm” & S206, “Apply Defense Algorithm” & Abstract, “specification of, when the possible of the prescribed attack is detected, a first defense algorithm capable of making a defense against the prescribed attack from among the plurality of defense algorithms” & [0005], “appropriately make a defense against an arbitrary attack on data using in learning or inference” & [0139], “perform linear combination on a prescribed number of defense methods” denotes selecting a plurality of defensive methods). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gu, which uses a fixed defense method, by selecting a particular appropriate defense method or methods, as does Kubota. The motivation to do so is “appropriate defense methods are different even when attack methods are the same and data sets are the same … it is possible to select appropriate defense methods by using the indexes showing the accuracy of the defense methods” (Kubota, [0178]).
Regarding Claim 5, the Gu/Kubota combination of Claim 1 teaches the storage mediums of Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The combination has already been shown to teach, via Gu, augmenting the plurality of example with one or more adversarial examples (Gu, [0055], “the purified input data may also be provided … for inclusion in the training dataset to augment the training dataset and improve the training of the DL computer model”).
Regarding Claim 6, the Gu/Kubota combination of Claim 5 teaches the storage mediums of Claim 5 (and thus the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated). The combination, via Gu, further teaches determining whether the [selected subset of, via Kubota] defensive preprocessing methods adversely affects the accuracy of the inference engine (Gu, [0055], “the purified input data may also be provided, if determined to be appropriate for the implementation, for inclusion in the training dataset”).
Regarding Claim 7, the Gu/Kubota combination of Claim 1 teaches the storage mediums of Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Gu further teaches wherein the system is an autonomous or assisted driving system (Gu, [0063], “the cognitive system may be a decision support system … such as vehicle control and/or safety systems”).
Claims 8 and 12-14 recite an apparatus comprising one or more processors and a storage on which to perform the operations recited in Claims 1 and 5-7, respectively. As Gu teaches such an embodiment (Gu, [0006], “In at least one illustrated embodiment … in a data system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory”), Claims 8 and 12-14 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 5-7, respectively.
Claims 15, 19, and 20 recite methods of performing precisely the operations recited in Claims 1, 5, and 6, respectively, and are thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of those claims, respectively.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, in view of Kubota, and further in view of Benyo, US PG Pub 2018/0309779.
Regarding Claim 2, the Gu/Kubota combination of Claim 1 teaches the storage mediums of Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The combination does not teach, but Benyo does teach, selecting the proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods includes selecting the proper subset based at least in part on a security and runtime preferences configuration (Benyo, [0099], “insertion allows operator to insert a new defense configuration …; filter allows the operator to modify the rules … by requiring or preventing particular defense configurations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow user configuration to effect what defensive methods are available for selection in the Gu/Kubota combination, as taught by Benyo. The motivation to do so is to allow users to manually effect the configurations.
Regarding Claim 3, the Gu/Kubota/Benyo combination of Claim 2 teaches the storage mediums of Claim 2 (and thus the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated). The combination further teaches, via Kubota, wherein selecting the proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods includes selecting a different proper subset of defensive preprocessing methods than a subset selected for an immediately previous operation (Kubota, [0139], “the specification unit 105 may specify a defense method corresponding to the type of an attack on the basis of the type of the detected attack” that is, each different attack on subsequent operations can be countered with a dynamically selected appropriate method).
Regarding Claim 4, the Gu/Kubota/Benyo combination of Claim 2 teaches the storage mediums of Claim 2 (and thus the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated). The combination further teaches, via Kubota, selecting a subset that does not include multiple related defensive preprocessing methods (Kubota, [0139], “the specification unit 105 may specify a defense method corresponding to the type of an attack on the basis of the type of the detected attack” that is, a single defense method may be selected as a proper subset).
Claims 9-11 recite an apparatus comprising one or more processors and a storage on which to perform the operations recited in Claims 2-4, respectively. As Gu teaches such an embodiment (Gu, [0006], “In at least one illustrated embodiment … in a data system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory”), Claims 9-11 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2-4, respectively.
Claims 16-18 recite methods of performing precisely the operations recited in Claims 2-4, respectively, and are thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of those claims, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 4th, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims as directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention improves technology, but this statement is unpersuasive. The claims merely recite selecting one or more preprocessing methods, and applying them to the machine learning system. Selecting a method is an abstract idea, and the claims provide no guidance on how an appropriate method or subset of methods is to selected. The claims fail to recite the steps which actually achieve an improvement, and merely recite the idea of a solution – as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claimed invention fails to recite an improvement in technology and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because secondary reference Kubota does not select a subset of defensive preprocessing methods, that the combination cannot teach the recited independent claims. However, this is looking at the prior art references used in the obviousness rejection individually, and not taken as a whole. Primary reference Gu teaches defensive preprocessing methods. Secondary reference Kubota is relied upon only to teach (in the same context of machine learning as Gu) that it is sometimes desirable to select a subset of defensive methods, rather than to use every defensive method. This teaching of Kubota is thus applicable to any defensive method (pre-processing or not) – it would have been obvious to apply the selecting of a subset of defensive methods (as taught by Kubota) to the specific defensive preprocessing methods of Gu.
The examiner notes that the amendments made to Claims 11 and 18 were not made to parallel Claim 4; however, this does not appear to effect the rejections of the current office action. Similarly, independent Claim 8 appears to have been amended differently from Claims 1 and 15, but as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, this has had an effect on the required rejections of the current office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122