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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,443,182. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,443,182
Claim 1: A method, in a data processing system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory comprising instructions that are executed by the at least one processor to configure the at least one processor to implement an enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the method comprising: receiving, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, from a client computing device, first subnet model of a neural network, wherein the first subnet model is one partition of multiple partitions of the neural network, and wherein the first subnet model is encrypted; loading, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the first subnet model into a trusted execution environment of the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework; decrypting, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the first subnet model within the trusted execution environment and executing the first subnet model within the trusted execution environment; receiving, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, encrypted input data from the client computing device; loading, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the encrypted input data into the trusted execution environment; and decrypting and processing, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the input data in the trusted execution environment using the first subnet model executing within the trusted execution environment.
Claim 1: A method, in a data processing system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory comprising instructions that are executed by the at least one processor to configure the at least one processor to implement an enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the method comprising: receiving, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, from a client computing device, an encrypted first subnet model of a neural network, wherein the first subnet model is one partition of multiple partitions of the neural network; loading, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the encrypted first subnet model into a trusted execution environment of the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework; decrypting, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the first subnet model within the trusted execution environment and executing the first subnet model within the trusted execution environment; receiving, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, encrypted input data from the client computing device; loading, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the encrypted input data into the trusted execution environment; and decrypting and processing, by the enhanced privacy deep learning system framework, the input data in the trusted execution environment using the first subnet model executing within the trusted execution environment, wherein the first subnet model is a FrontNet subnet model comprising an input layer of the neural network and one or more intermediate layers of the neural network model, and wherein the neural network comprises a second subnet model that is a BackNet subnet model comprising an output layer of the neural network that outputs result data, and one or more intermediate layers of the neural network model; and outputting the result data to a deep learning system to perform a classification operation to classify the encrypted input data into one of a plurality of predefined classes.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to implement an enhanced privacy deep learning system framework and is substantively-similar independent claims 11,20, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.11,443,182 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 2-10,12-19, each depending from one of independent claims 1,8 and 16, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,443,182 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn in view of amendment filed 2/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,749.
Applicant’s argument regarding the alleged lack of clarity in the obviousness double patenting rejection has been considered but is not persuasive. The Office Action clearly identifies the reference patent as U.S. Patent No. 11,443,182 in the body of the rejection and provides a clear claim comparison showing that the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims of the patent. Any reference in the introductory statement to U.S. Patent No. 12,132,749 was a typographical error and does not affect the substance of the rejection. The rejection was clearly based on U.S. Patent No. 11,443,182, as evidences by the detailed claim comparison provided in the Office Action. Accordingly, applicant’s request for issuance of a new non-final Office Action for clarification is not warranted, as the basis of the rejection was sufficiently clear from the 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.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached 571-270-3351. 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.
/HOSUK SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435