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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The single reference on the IDS filed on 8/29/2025 has been considered; however, any references listed within that reference have not been considered as they are not properly listed on an IDS.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites select a model description for a predictive analytics model, the model description created with a predictive analytics model description language, the model description from a predictive analytics provider; however, the last phrase of that limitation is not clear. Specifically, the model description from a predictive analytics provider appears to be lacking one or more words. Claims 8 and 17 also contain this error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8, 10-17, 19-25 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. Specifically, exemplary claim 1 recites execute an executable associated with the model description, while preventing the at least one programmable circuitry from accessing the executable and while preventing the predictive analytics provider from accessing the input data. However, it is unclear how the at least one programmable circuitry can execute an executable without having access to the executable. For this reason, the above listed claims are rejected for containing this language or being dependent on a claim that contains this language.
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 1-8, 10-17, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is a device claim. Claim 8 is a CRM claim. Claim 17 is a method claim. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 17 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to Claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
select a model description for a predictive analytics model, the model description created with a predictive analytics model description language, the model description from a predictive analytics provider (mental process – user can manually select a model description for a predictive analytics model, the model description created with a predictive analytics model description language)
compare first data associated with the user-level application request with second data indicative of digital rights permissions associated with the model description (mental process – user can manually compare first data associated with the user-level application request with second data indicative of digital rights permissions associated with the model description)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements:
A mobile computing device (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
communication circuitry (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
machine readable instructions (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
at least one programmable circuitry to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to, in response to a user-level application request including input data from an application of the mobile computing device, launch a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem of the mobile computing device (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
at least one programmable circuitry to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to, in response to a user-level application request including input data from an application of the mobile computing device, launch a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem of the mobile computing device (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
execute an executable associated with the model description, while preventing the at least one programmable circuitry from accessing the executable and while preventing the predictive analytics provider from accessing the input data (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements:
A mobile computing device (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
communication circuitry (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
machine readable instructions (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
at least one programmable circuitry to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to, in response to a user-level application request including input data from an application of the mobile computing device, launch a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem of the mobile computing device (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
at least one programmable circuitry to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to, in response to a user-level application request including input data from an application of the mobile computing device, launch a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem of the mobile computing device (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
execute an executable associated with the model description, while preventing the at least one programmable circuitry from accessing the executable and while preventing the predictive analytics provider from accessing the input data (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Conclusion: The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1. Additionally, for claim 8: Claim 8 has the additional elements of one or more non-transitory machine readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon. These elements are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding Claim 2: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of nodes and edges of a tree structure to generate the predictive analytics model.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the mobile computing device is to convert the tree structure to the executable when the user-level application request is permitted.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the mobile computing device is to convert the tree structure to the executable when the user-level application request is permitted recite merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of wherein the mobile computing device is to convert the tree structure to the executable when the user-level application request is permitted recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of coefficients to generate the predictive analytics model.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the coefficients when the user-level application request is permitted.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the coefficients when the user-level application request is permitted recite merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the coefficients when the user-level application request is permitted recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of an input format for the input data.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the input format when the user-level application request is permitted.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the input format when the user-level application request is permitted recite merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the input format when the user-level application request is permitted recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem in a trust execution environment.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem in a trust execution environment are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of wherein the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem in a trust execution environment amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment recite adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment recite merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim) (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually interpret the model description using the predictive analytics model description language; create a model structure based on the model description, wherein the model structure corresponds to a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of convert the model structure to the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of convert the model structure to the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive recite merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of convert the model structure to the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually use wherein the input data is a photograph.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-13 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-4 respectively.
Regarding Claim 14: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually decrypt the model description.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of store the decrypted model description in a trusted memory region of a trust execution environment.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of store the decrypted model description in a trusted memory region of a trust execution environment recite adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of store the decrypted model description in a trusted memory region of a trust execution environment recite merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim) (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of create the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive and the model description.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of create the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive and the model description are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of create the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive and the model description amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually verify digital rights associated with a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of execute a digital rights management subsystem.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of execute a digital rights management subsystem are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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(s) of execute a digital rights management subsystem amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or operation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 19-25 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 10, 2-4, 14, 16, and 7 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 16-17, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin ‘427), U.S. Patent 8,843,427 in view of Al-Jaroodi et al. (hereinafter Al-Jaroodi), Security middleware approaches and issues for ubiquitous applications.
Regarding Claim 1, Lin ‘427 discloses a mobile computing device comprising:
communication circuitry [“a client computing system” col. 2, lines 55-56];
machine readable instructions [“a client computing system” col. 2, lines 55-56];
at least one programmable circuitry to be programmed by the machine readable instructions [“a client computing system” col. 2, lines 55-56] to, in response to a user-level application request [“queries” col. 3, lines 41-42] including input data [“input data” col. 2, line 55] from an application of the mobile computing device ["in some implementations, the trained predictive model 218 is provided to a client computing system 202 or elsewhere, and can be used locally by the client entity" col. 11, lines 26-28], launch a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem of the mobile computing device [“can be implemented in a computing system that includes … a middleware component” col. 19, lines 60-62], the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem to:
select a model description for a predictive analytics model [“model selection” col. 5, lines 26-27], the model description created with a predictive analytics model description language [“programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, declarative or procedural languages” col. 18, lines 50-51], the model description from a predictive analytics provider [“predictive modeling server system” col. 5, line 11];
compare first data associated with the user-level application request with second data indicative of digital rights permissions associated with the model description [“Access and permission can be controlled using conventional techniques for user authorization and authentication and for access control’ col. 4, lines 42-44: “limited to authorized users” col. 10, line 8];
execute an executable associated with the model description [“processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs” col. 19, lines 7-9] while preventing the at least one programmable circuitry from accessing the executable [“Access and permission can be controlled using conventional techniques for user authorization and authentication and for access control’ col. 4, lines 42-44: “limited to authorized users” col. 10, line 8] and while preventing the predictive analytics provider from accessing the input data.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem.
Al-Jaroodi discloses a trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem [“security middleware” §3; “an independent layer to support security aspects” pg. 189, line 32; “access control’ §2, line 4; “Middleware Framework’ Fig. 1; “middleware could be used to provide security and protect users from privacy violation and data leakage” pg. 188, lines 12-13].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427 and Al-Jaroodi before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the predictive analytics of Lin ‘427 to incorporate the security middleware system of Al-Jaroodi.
Given the advantage of securing data, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose execute an executable associated with the model description, while preventing the at least one programmable circuitry from accessing the executable and while preventing the predictive analytics provider from accessing the input data.
Lioudakis discloses execute an executable associated with the model description, while preventing the at least one programmable circuitry from accessing the executable and while preventing the predictive analytics provider from accessing the input data [“the deployment of a unit of trust, which acts as a three way privacy mediator between the law, the users and the service providers. The central unit of the proposed middleware architecture is a privacy proxy, namely the Discreet Box, which constitutes the point where these three actors meet” §1 ¶5; “define whether a personal data request from a service is permitted or not, according to the current privacy status, the currently enabled privacy protecting measures and the privacy level required for each particular data type” §3.2 ¶1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate the user data privacy of Lioudakis.
Given the advantage of ensuring user data privacy and abiding by data privacy laws, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 5, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the mobile computing device of claim.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem in a trust execution environment.
Al-Jaroodi discloses wherein the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem in a trust execution environment [“trust-based middleware for providing security” §4.3 ¶1; “Its architecture consists of three layers: the trust layer, security layer and application layer” §4.3 ¶2; “The trust layer holds a trust manager used to handle four processes: specification, establishment, monitoring, and trust termination. The security layer also contains the authentication manager, communication API, Cryptographic provider and credentials manger. The application layer contains an application that is developed using the Wireless and Secure File Exchange Protocol (WSFEP).” §4.3 ¶2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate a trusted environment in which to execute the middleware of Al-Jaroodi.
Given the advantage of security and privacy, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the one or more non-transitory machine readable storage media of claim 8.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are to cause the mobile computing device to execute a digital rights management subsystem to verify digital rights associated with a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request.
Al-Jaroodi discloses wherein the instructions are to cause the mobile computing device to execute a digital rights management subsystem to verify digital rights associated with a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request [“a middleware for digital rights management (DRM)” §4.9 ¶1; “interpreting the rights and rendering the secure content” §4.9 ¶2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate digital rights management of Al-Jaroodi.
Given the advantage of securing content, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis in view of Head, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140297297.
Regarding Claim 2, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the mobile computing device of claim 1. Lin ‘427 further discloses when the user-level application request is permitted [“limited to authorized users” col. 10, line 8].
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of nodes and edges of a tree structure to generate the predictive analytics model, and wherein the mobile computing device is to convert the tree structure to the executable when the user-level application request is permitted.
Head discloses wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of nodes and edges of a tree structure to generate the predictive analytics model, and wherein the mobile computing device is to convert the tree structure to the executable when the user-level application request is permitted [“utilize a domain specific language to generate a computer-executable healthcare treatment model from a set of clinical treatment guidelines. The healthcare treatment model may include one or more decision trees comprising various decision nodes representative of a series of determinations to be made in analyzing patient healthcare data and arriving at a healthcare treatment that is compliant with the clinical guidelines. While healthcare treatment models generated in accordance with methodologies described herein may be described in the context of decision trees, it should be appreciated that such healthcare treatment models may take on any suitable form” ¶14].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Head before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate an executable model with a tree structure of Head.
Given the advantage of executing a known model type such as one with a tree structure for prediction, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 3, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Head disclose the mobile computing device of claim 2. Lin ‘427 further discloses when the user-level application request is permitted [“limited to authorized users” col. 10, line 8].
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of coefficients to generate the predictive analytics model, and wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the coefficients when the user-level application request is permitted.
Head discloses wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of coefficients to generate the predictive analytics model, and wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the coefficients when the user-level application request is permitted [“utilize a domain specific language to generate a computer-executable healthcare treatment model from a set of clinical treatment guidelines. The healthcare treatment model may include one or more decision trees comprising various decision nodes representative of a series of determinations to be made in analyzing patient healthcare data and arriving at a healthcare treatment that is compliant with the clinical guidelines. While healthcare treatment models generated in accordance with methodologies described herein may be described in the context of decision trees, it should be appreciated that such healthcare treatment models may take on any suitable form” ¶14; Note: a series of determinations include values which can be interpreted as coefficients].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Head before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate an executable model with coefficients of Head.
Given the advantage of executing a model based on input for prediction, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 4, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis and Head disclose the mobile computing device of claim 3. Lin ‘427 further discloses when the user-level application request is permitted [“limited to authorized users” col. 10, line 8].
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of input format for the input data, and wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the input format when the user-level application request is permitted.
Head discloses wherein the predictive analytics model description language is indicative of input format for the input data, and wherein the mobile computing device is to generate the executable based on the input format when the user-level application request is permitted [“utilize a domain specific language to generate a computer-executable healthcare treatment model from a set of clinical treatment guidelines. The healthcare treatment model may include one or more decision trees comprising various decision nodes representative of a series of determinations to be made in analyzing patient healthcare data and arriving at a healthcare treatment that is compliant with the clinical guidelines. While healthcare treatment models generated in accordance with methodologies described herein may be described in the context of decision trees, it should be appreciated that such healthcare treatment models may take on any suitable form” ¶14; Note: a series of determinations to be made in analyzing patient healthcare data include input format (e.g., input data)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Head before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate an executable model with input format of Head.
Given the advantage of executing a model based on input for prediction, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claims 11-13 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-4 respectively.
Claims 20-22 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-4 respectively.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 14, 19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis, in view of Hoekstra et al. (hereinafter Hoekstra), Using Innovative Instructions to Create Trustworthy Software Solutions.
Regarding Claim 6, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the mobile computing device of claim 5.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment.
Al-Jaroodi discloses wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment [“trust-based middleware for providing security” §4.3 ¶1; “Its architecture consists of three layers: the trust layer, security layer and application layer” §4.3 ¶2; “The trust layer holds a trust manager used to handle four processes: specification, establishment, monitoring, and trust termination. The security layer also contains the authentication manager, communication API, Cryptographic provider and credentials manger. The application layer contains an application that is developed using the Wireless and Secure File Exchange Protocol (WSFEP).” §4.3 ¶2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate a trusted environment in which to execute the middleware.
Given the advantage of security and privacy, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment.
Hoekstra discloses wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to store the input data in a trusted memory region of the trust execution environment [“ECREATE – Allocates a region of virtual memory within the application for hosting the secure code and data” §2 ¶2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Hoekstra before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate secure memory regions of Hoekstra.
Given the advantage of protecting sensitive or private data, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 10, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the one or more non-transitory machine readable storage media of claim 8.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the input data is a photograph.
Hoekstra discloses wherein the input data is a photograph [“used for everything from sharing pictures with family and friends, to working with top secret enterprise intellectual property, with hundreds of new applications and cloud services becoming available every day” §1.1 ¶1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Hoekstra before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate using photographic information as input data of Hoekstra.
Given the advantage of extending digital rights permissions to photographs online, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 14, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the one or more non-transitory machine readable storage media of claim 8.
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are to cause the mobile computing device to:
decrypt the model description; and
store the decrypted model description in a trusted memory region of a trust execution environment.
Hoekstra discloses wherein the instructions are to cause the mobile computing device to:
decrypt the model description [“after validating that the use policy (downloaded securely from the server into the enclave) of the document is compatible with the user operation (e.g., viewing), also gets the document decryption key and transfers control to the document reader component. The reader decrypts the document” §3.2.3 ¶5]; and
store the decrypted model description in a trusted memory region of a trust execution environment [“ECREATE – Allocates a region of virtual memory within the application for hosting the secure code and data” §2 ¶2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Hoekstra before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate security methods like encryption.
Given the advantage of protecting sensitive or private data, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 14.
Claim(s) 7, 15, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis, in view of Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin ‘280), U.S. Patent 8,370,280.
Regarding Claim 7, Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, and Lioudakis disclose the mobile computing device of claim 1. Lin further discloses create a model structure based on the model description, wherein the model structure corresponds to a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request [“obtain predictions for queries” col. 2 line 59].
However, Lin ‘427 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to:
interpret the model description using the predictive analytics model description language;
create a model structure based on the model description, wherein the model structure corresponds to a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request; and
convert the model structure to the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive.
Lin ‘280 discloses wherein the trusted predictive analytics middleware subsystem is to:
interpret the model description [“a machine learning algorithm can include a number of ordered steps or operations for analyzing training data and generating a predictive model” col. 4 lines 5-7; Table 2] using the predictive analytics model description language [“the model representation can be provided in the form of a Predictive Model Markup Language (PMML) document” col. 4 lines 56-58];
create a model structure based on the model description [generating a predictive model” col. 4 line 7; Table 2], wherein the model structure corresponds to a predictive analytics service requested in the user-level application request; and
convert the model structure to the executable based on a predictive analytics execution primitive [“output the predictive model in a suitable computer readable and executable format” col. 4 lines 16-17].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lin ‘427, Al-Jaroodi, Lioudakis, and Lin ‘280 before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to incorporate model creation of Lin ‘280.
Given the advantage of interchangeability between systems by allowing model creation from descriptions, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Additionally, any claim amendments for any reason should include remarks indicating clear support in the originally filed specification.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the §101 rejections, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive. Applicant argues that 1) the claim do not recite a judicial exception similarly to Example 37 claim 2 and Example 39 claim 1, 2) the instant claims provide a specific improvement on how a computer can execute an executable as shown in Enfish, 3) the elements of claim 1 are integrated into a practical application similarly to Example 37 claim 1 and the claims at issue in Enfish, and 4) the claim as a whole has ordered combination that provides an inventive concept. Examiner disagrees with each point for at least the following reasons.
First, exemplary claim 1 does recite an abstract idea unlike Example 37 claim 2 and Example 39 claim 1. Claim 1 recites, select a model description for a predictive analytics model, the model description created with a predictive analytics model description language, the model description received from a predictive analytics provider, and compare first data associated with the user-level application request with second data indicative of digital rights permissions associated with the model description. Both the selection and comparison can be done manually by a person. These are abstract ideas and therefore claim 1 does recite an abstract idea under Step 2A prong 1.
Second, exemplary claim 1 does not recite a specific improvement. While it does recite limiting access to an executable, the claim does not tie any improvement to that aspect. If the disclosure sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). For this reason, there is no specific improvement under Step 2A prong 2.
Third, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Example 37 claim 1 shows that the abstract determining limitation is integrated into a practical application by the additional element steps of receiving a user selection and automatically moving the most used icons because the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Contrarily, the instant claim’s additional elements merely provide a compute environment using generic computer components in which to implement the abstract idea. There is no clear connection between the additional elements and the abstract ideas in which to base a practical application. Any practical application in the specification is not realized in the claims. For this reason, no practical application is found.
Fourth, the claim does not recite an inventive concept. Any inventive concept in the specification is not realized in the claims. For example, the claim recites, compare first data associated with the user-level application request with second data indicative of digital rights permissions associated with the model description, but this limitation has not claimed any impact on the accessing of the executable or the input data. There is a lack of particular arrangement of elements to provide an inventive concept to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, significantly more is not found.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive. Applicant argues that neither Lin or Al-Jaroodi disclose a local middleware subsystem executed on a mobile computing device. Examiner disagrees for at least the following reasons.
Lin discloses "in some implementations, the trained predictive model 218 is provided to a client computing system 202 or elsewhere, and can be used locally by the client entity" at col. 11, lines 26-28 and “[e]mbodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes … a middleware component” at col. 19, lines 60-62. This at least suggests the use of local processing of the subsystem on the client device.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 ROBERT H BEJCEK II whose telephone number is (571)270-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michelle T. Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2148
/MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148