DETAILED ACTION
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.
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 9/28/2025.
Clam 4 has been canceled.
Claim 16 has been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending for consideration.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The rejection under 35 U.S.C §112(a) and 112(b) of claims 1-3 and 5-15 has been withdrawn as the claims have been amended.
Regarding to the 101 software per se rejection of claims 6-15, the Applicant did not address this rejection in the Remarks filed on 9/28/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the Remarks that the Applicant asserts that the present invention achieves “positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream”, which cannot be evaluated or determined by human mental process.
In response to the above argument, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream, when recited in high level of generality is simply mathematical calculation with or without pen and paper that is merely being applied onto a general purpose computer or algorithm using generic hardware. Furthermore, the feature of the original data stream, the first data stream and the second data stream are consisted of binary values, when recited in high level of generality, not including details computer implementation, is merely extra solution activity. When considered the limitation individually or in ordered combination, they are not significantly more than abstract ideas, and as a result, are directed to abstract ideas. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 3 and 4 of the Remarks that Hoover fails to teach the technical feature of two random string transformation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hoover does teach the technical feature of two random string transformation (Hoover: column 6 lines 31-40, “In this example, the annotations 106 define two transformations to be performed on the code 108 when it is served. Each transformation is indicated in the annotations 106 by the syntax “TXn.” Each annotation is followed by data that defines the transformation that is to be performed in the code 108. For example, the transformation TX1 defines a transformation in the form that the string ABC, when it is encountered by a transformation system, is transformed into a particular random string of characters.” and Hoover: column 6 lines 31-40, “In this example, the annotations 106 define two transformations to be performed on the code 108 when it is served.). Therefore, Hoover does teach the disputed limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e, “Table 1 also indicates that PRR, IRR, and SRR are neither identical nor simply random values; rather, they are distinct from one another. In particular, the present invention describes that the SRR processing method allows the data content of the second data stream to more closely approximate that of the original data stream. In contrast, the data content of the first data stream, which does not undergo SRR processing, exhibits a greater deviation from the original data stream.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-16 have been considered but are moot.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Input unit in claim 1.
Input unit in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see paragraphs 0036 of the applicant’s specification, “wherein a pre-processor receives an input data stream (e.g. the client-side private data stream) and utilizes Hash encoding to the input data stream to generate an original data stream with an original character”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites the limitation “applies an instantaneous randomized response (IRR) to the temporal data stream based on the second random number set”. This limitation is unclear. According to Fig. 2 and paragraph 0049, this step is used to generate a first stream data. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11514189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications disclose the spintronics-based private aggregatable randomized response (SPARR), an advanced data collection and analysis mechanism that conforms to the differential privacy requirements by using a multilayer randomized response based on a set of MTJs. (See Claims Comparison Table below)
Instant Application 17969447
Patent Application 11514189
Claim 16:
A data collection and analysis system comprising: an input unit for receiving an original data stream with an original character; and an integrated circuit coupled to the input unit, for receiving the original data stream, generating a first data stream with a first character by applying a first noise step to the original data stream, and generating a second data stream with a second character by applying a second noise step to the first data stream, a random number generator for generating a first random number set and a second random number set, wherein positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream, wherein the integrated circuit applies a permanent randomized response (PRR) to the original data stream based on the first random number set to generate a temporaldata stream, and applies an instantaneous randomized response (IRR) to the temporal data stream based on the second random number set. wherein the random number generator generates a third random number set and the processor applies a synthetic randomized response (SRR) to the first data stream based on the third random number set to generate the second data stream.
Claim 1:
A data collection and analysis method comprising: applying, by an integrated circuit, a first noise step, via a stochastic nature of spin-transfer-torque (STT) switching in magnetic tunnel junctions (MJTs) to multiple positions of an original data stream having an original character to generate a first data stream having a first character based on at least one random number set, and applying, by the integrated circuit, a second noise step, via the STT switching in NM's, to multiple positions of the first data stream to generate a second data stream having a second character based on at least one random number set, wherein a first variation between the original character and the first character is greater than a second variation between the original character and the second character, and the first variation and the second variation are calculated based by Hamming distances, wherein applying the first noise step comprises: applying a permanent randomized response (PRR) to the original data stream based on a first random number set produced by a true random number generator to generate a temporal data stream and applying an instantaneous randomized response (IRR) to the temporal data stream based on a second random number set produced by the true random number generator to generate the first data stream, and wherein applying the second noise step comprises: applying a synthetic randomized response (SRR) to the first data stream based on a third random number set produced by the true random number generator to generate the second data stream.
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 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 11-20 are being directed to no more than software per se.
Claims 6 and 11 are directed to “a first processor”, “a second processor”, “a processor unit” and “a true random number generator”. The specification as originally filed fails to set forth the metes and bounds of what is meant to be encompassed by the terms “first processor/second processor/processor unit” and “generator”. As such, it is reasonable to interpret the terms “first processor/second processor/processor unit” and “generator” as software per se (see Computer Desktop Encyclopedia). Therefore, claims 6 and 11 are not patent-eligible subject matter. The dependent claims 7-10 and 12-15 are depended on the rejected base claims, and are rejected for the same rationales.
Under a separate rejection under this title, claims 1-3, and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are directed to a machine
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial exception:
The following claim limitations have been identified as being directed to an abstract idea:
Claim 1:
generating a first data stream with a first character by applying a first noise step to the original data stream, and generating a second data stream with a second character by applying a second noise step to the first data stream, (This limitation has been identified as an intended to add random number to a dataset to transform from one dataset format to another dataset format, and as such is not afforded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the act of transforming, as claimed, has been identified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a))); and
wherein the original data stream, the first data stream, and the second data stream are consisted of binary values, wherein positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream (These claim limitations have been identified as a mental process, specifically an evaluation and determination. A human being can evaluate and calculate a distance between two items compared to a threshold to determine if the distance is greater than or equal to a threshold value).
Claim 6:
applying a first noise step to an original data stream with an original character to generate a first data stream with a first character (This limitation has been identified as an intended to add random number to a dataset to transform from one dataset format to another dataset format, and as such is not afforded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the act of transforming, as claimed, has been identified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)); and a second processor applying a second noise step to the first data stream to generate a second data stream with a second character (This limitation has been identified as an intended to add another random number to a dataset to transform from one dataset format to another dataset format, and as such is not afforded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the act of transforming, as claimed, has been identified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)); and
wherein the original data stream, the first data stream, and the second data stream are consisted of binary values,wherein positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream. (These claim limitations have been identified as a mental process, specifically an evaluation and determination. A human being can evaluate and calculate a distance compared to a threshold to determine if the distance between two variables is greater than or equal to a threshold value).
Claim 11:
generating a plurality of random numbers without the need of a seed (This limitation has been identified as an intended to add random numbers to a dataset to transform from one dataset format to another dataset format, and as such is not afforded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the act of transforming, as claimed, has been identified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)); and a processor unit, based on the plurality of random numbers, de-identifying identification information in an original data stream with an original character, and generating a second data stream with a second character by applying at least a synthetic randomized response to the original data stream (This limitation has been identified as an intended to add random number to a dataset to transform from one dataset format to another dataset format, and as such is not afforded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the act of transforming, as claimed, has been identified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a));
wherein the original data stream, the first data stream, and the second data stream are consisted of binary values, wherein positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream (These claim limitations have been identified as a mental process, specifically an evaluation and determination. A human being can evaluate and calculate a distance compared to a threshold to determine if the distance between two variables is greater than or equal to a threshold value).
Depending claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, and 12-15 have been identified as either mental process or mathematical concept.
When taken as a whole the claim appears to recite the use of a metal process and mathematical concept to provide a data collection and analysis.
When viewed as a whole the claimed device appears to recite an abstract idea implemented within a computer environment.
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a practical application:
The following claim limitations have been identified as additional elements.
Claims 1, 6 and 11:
an input unit for receiving an original data stream with an original character; an integrated circuit coupled to the input unit…(This claim limitation has been identified reciting the use of the generic computing device to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment, MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)).
a first processor applying a first noise step to an original data stream with an original character to generate a first data stream with a first character; and a second processor applying a second noise step … (This claim limitation has been identified reciting the use of the generic computing device to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment, MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)).
a true random number generator generating a plurality of random numbers without the need of a seed ((Organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations are insignificant extra-solution activities. They do not improve existing technology, see MPEP § 2106.05(g), organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).);); and a processor unit, based on the plurality of random numbers (This claim limitation has been identified reciting the use of the generic computing device to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment, MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)).
Receiving an original data stream with an original character; … for receiving the original data stream (Receiving steps are insignificant extra-solution activities. They do not improve existing technology, see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
When read as a whole, the claim device appears to implement a mental process and mathematical concept within a computer environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Wherein the computer system simply emulates human cognitive functions, automating a manual process. When taken individually or viewed as an ordered combination the claims as a whole do not appear to be integrated into a practical application.
As a result, the claims are abstract idea. When considered individually or as
in ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not improve existing technology and as a result, directed to abstract ideas
Step 2B Significantly more:
Most of the above identified additional limitations (see Step 2A Prong Two) have been identified as recitations of generic purpose computing devices performing generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(l). These additional limitations appear to recite the mere use of generic computer devices performing generic computer functions enabling the implementation of the abstract idea within a computing environment. The computing devices appear to merely be a tool which implement the abstract idea and do not appear to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole, do not appear to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion:
Based on the above rational the claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been deemed to ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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, 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, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 9813440) (hereinafter Hoover) in view of MORRISON (US 20180063709) (hereinafter MORRISON).
Regarding claim 1, Hoover discloses a data collection and analysis system comprising: an input unit for receiving an original data stream with an original character (Hoover: column 6 lines 4-11, “Looking more specifically now at electronic document 102, the document 102 includes annotations 106 and code 108. The code 108 may take a variety of forms, such as HTML or JavaScript code. For example, the code 108 may include commands that cause a login screen to be rendered on a browser of a device, such as for content served by an Internet retailer or banker.”); and an integrated circuit coupled to the input unit, for receiving the original data stream, generating a first data stream with a first character by applying a first noise step to the original data stream (Hoover: column 6 lines 31-40, “In this example, the annotations 106 define two transformations to be performed on the code 108 when it is served. Each transformation is indicated in the annotations 106 by the syntax “TXn.” Each annotation is followed by data that defines the transformation that is to be performed in the code 108. For example, the transformation TX1 defines a transformation in the form that the string ABC, when it is encountered by a transformation system, is transformed into a particular random string of characters.”), and generating a second data stream with a second character by applying a second noise to the first data stream (Hoover: column 6 lines 31-40, “In this example, the annotations 106 define two transformations to be performed on the code 108 when it is served.),
Hoover does not explicitly disclose the following limitation which is disclose by MORRISON, wherein the original data stream, the first data stream, and the second data stream are consisted of binary values (MORRISON: paragraphs 0203-0204 and 0225-0228, “A Hamming distance is the number of characters in which two strings (words) differ, measured with the metric of the corresponding alphabet. For example, if X is the string ‘000’ and Y is the string ‘111’, then the Hamming distance is ‘3’, since every character in the two strings is different. If G is the string ‘101’ and H is the string ‘110’, then the Hamming distance is ‘2’, since the second and third characters in the strings are different.”), wherein positions having a specific value in the original data stream is a first positions, and the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the second data stream is greater than the number of the specific values in positions corresponding to the first positions in the first data stream (MORRISON: paragraphs 0202 and 0225-0228, “Referring to FIGS. 34A and 34B, the matrix in FIG. 34A shows the transformed UCR values from FIGS. 29B, 30B, 31B, 32B and 33B. FIG. 34B shows the Hamming distance between UCR 1 to UCR 2 and UCR 1 to UCR 3. The Hamming distance is a number that denotes a difference between two binary strings. As shown in FIG. 34B, the Hamming Distance ‘h’ is essentially the number of “bits” or categorical elements that are different. The value of each ‘bit’ is determined by: ‘Match’=0 (near) ‘Non-Match’=1 (far). The raw Hamming distance between two binary strings is the sum of the ‘match’ bits. By this analysis, UCR-1 is closer to UCR-2 (h=2) than to UCR-3 (h=3). Therefore, the UCR-2 is the reference string.”).
Hoover and MORRISON are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data protection. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hoover and MORRISON before him or her, to modify the system of Hoover to include a Hamming distance between an original data stream and a first data stream is greater than a Hamming distance between an original data stream and a second data stream of MORRISON. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to protect against Man-In-The-Middle attacks (MORRISON: paragraph 0237).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 discloses a device claim that is substantially equivalent to the system of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 6 and rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 discloses a device claim that is substantially equivalent to the system of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 11 and rejected for the same reasons. Hoover as modified further discloses generating a de-identified second data stream with a second character by applying at least a synthetic randomized response to the original data stream (Hoover: column 7 lines 32-48, “The transformed code 110 is in the form of an electronic document 104 that will actually be served by an intermediary security system to the requesting client, and includes substitutions as defined in the annotations 106. For example, the string ABC has been transformed in each instance to the random string of characters !X3. Similarly, the string XYZ has been transformed to the randomly selected string of characters ?#+. In actual implementation, a variety of additional and more-complicated transformations may be applied to the code 108, and may be applied across multiple different files of content, including different types of files, such as HTML files, CSS files, and JavaScript files. Also, for the shown two transformations, a different random string will be selected for each serving of the code, so that the modified code is served polymorphically.”).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of MORRISON, and further in view of Erlingsson et al. (Reference U: “RAPPOR: Randomized Aggregatable Privacy-Preserving ordinal Response”) (hereinafter Erlingsson).
Regarding claim 2, Hoover in view of MORRISON does not explicitly disclose the following limitation which is disclosed by Erlingsson, further comprises: a random number generator for generating a first random number set and a second random number set (Erlingsson: pages 3 and 4, “For this string, a Permanent randomized response B’ is produces and memoized by the client, and this B’ is used (and reused in the future) to generate Instantaneous randomized responses S (the bottom row), which are sent to the collecting service”)); wherein the integrated circuit applies a permanent randomized response (PRR) to the original data stream based on the first random number set, and applies an instantaneous randomized response (IRR) to the temporal data stream based on the second random number set (Erlingsson: see figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
373
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data processing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson before him or her, to modify the system of Hoover in view of MORRISON to include a true random number generator for generating a first random number set and a second random number set and applying a permanent randomized response (PRR) to an original data stream of Erlingsson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce and control the privacy risks introduced by the data collection process (Erlingsson: page 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Hoover as modified discloses wherein the random number generator generates a third random number set and the processor applies a synthetic randomized response (SRR) to the first data stream based on a third random number to generate the second data stream (Erlingsson: page 2, “traditional randomized response does not provide any longitudinal privacy in the case when multiple responses are collected from the same participant. Yet another contribution is that the RAPPOR mechanism is performed locally on the client, and does not require a trusted third party. Finally, RAPPOR provides a novel, high-utility decoding framework for learning statistics based on a sophisticated combination of hypotheses testing, least-squares solv- ing, and LASSO regression”). The same motivation to modify Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson, as applied in claim 2 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Hoover as modified discloses wherein identification information in the original data stream is de-identified after applying the first noise to the original data stream (Erlingsson: pages 3 and 4, “The first step, called a Permanent randomized response, is used to create a “noisy” answer which is memoized by the client and permanently reused in place of the real answer. The second step, called an Instantaneous randomized response, reports on the “noisy” answer over time, eventually completely revealing it.”). The same motivation to modify Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson, as applied in claim 2 above, applies here.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 12, Hoover as modified discloses a pre-processor for receiving an input data stream and utilizing Hash encoding to the input data stream to generate the original data stream with the original character to the input unit (Hoover: column 20 lines 30-39, “Data that characterizes the DOM may also be hashed, either at the client computer or the server system 602, to produce a representation of the DOM (e.g., in the differences between part of the DOM before and after a defined action occurs) that is easy to compare against corresponding representations of DOMs from other client computers. Other techniques may also be used by the instrumentation code to generate a compact representation of the DOM or other structure expected to be affected by malicious code in an identifiable manner.”). Hoover as modified further discloses and an output circuit outputting the second data stream (Hoover: column 7 lines 1-10, “Referring now to a second defined transformation in the annotations 106, transformation TX2 also defines that a particular string of characters is to be transformed into a random string when it is identified in the text. Again, a programming environment or other analysis system may have identified the string XYZ as a string that could be changed consistently throughout the code without affecting the manner in which the code would execute and be seen by a user of a browser that is served and that renders the code”).
Regarding claim 7, Hoover as modified discloses a true random number generator generating a first random number set, a second random number set, and a third random number set (Erlingsson: pages 3 and 4, “The first step, called a Permanent randomized response, is used to create a “noisy” answer which is memoized by the client and permanently reused in place of the real answer. The second step, called an Instantaneous randomized response, reports on the “noisy” answer over time, eventually completely revealing it.”); wherein the first processor applies a permanent randomized response to the original data stream based on the first random number set to generate a temporal data stream, and applies an instantaneous randomized response to the temporal data stream based on the second random number set to generate the first data stream (Erlingsson: pages 3 and 4, “The first step, called a Permanent randomized response, is used to create a “noisy” answer which is memoized by the client and permanently reused in place of the real answer. The second step, called an Instantaneous randomized response, reports on the “noisy” answer over time, eventually completely revealing it.”). The same motivation to modify Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson, as applied in claim 2 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 13, Hoover as modified discloses wherein the plurality of random numbers comprising a first random number set and a second random number set, and the processor unit comprising a first processor (Erlingsson: pages 3 and 4); wherein the first processor applies a permanent randomized response to the original data stream based on the first random number set to generate a temporal data stream, and the first processor further applies an instantaneous randomized response to the temporal data stream based on the second random number set to generate a first data stream with a first character (Erlingsson: pages 3 and 4, “The first step, called a Permanent randomized response, is used to create a “noisy” answer which is memoized by the client and permanently reused in place of the real answer. The second step, called an Instantaneous randomized response, reports on the “noisy” answer over time, eventually completely revealing it.”). The same motivation to modify Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson, as applied in claim 2 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 14, Hoover as modified discloses wherein the plurality of random numbers further comprising a third random number set, and the processor unit further comprising a second processor (Erlingsson: page 2, “traditional randomized response does not provide any longitudinal privacy in the case when multiple responses are collected from the same participant. Yet another contribution is that the RAPPOR mechanism is performed locally on the client, and does not require a trusted third party. Finally, RAPPOR provides a novel, high-utility decoding framework for learning statistics based on a sophisticated combination of hypotheses testing, least-squares solving, and LASSO regression”); wherein the second processor applies a synthetic randomized response to the first data stream based on the third random number set to generate the second data stream with the second character (Erlingsson: page 2, “traditional randomized response does not provide any longitudinal privacy in the case when multiple responses are collected from the same participant. Yet another contribution is that the RAPPOR mechanism is performed locally on the client, and does not require a trusted third party. Finally, RAPPOR provides a novel, high-utility decoding framework for learning statistics based on a sophisticated combination of hypotheses testing, least-squares solving, and LASSO regression”). The same motivation to modify Hoover in view of MORRISON and Erlingsson, as applied in claim 2 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 15, Hoover as modified discloses wherein a first variation between the original character and the first character is greater than a second variation between the original character and the second character (Hoover: column 6 lines 31-67 and column 7 lines 1-10, “In this example, the annotations 106 define two transformations to be performed on the code 108 when it is served. Each transformation is indicated in the annotations 106 by the syntax “TXn.” Each annotation is followed by data that defines the transformation that is to be performed in the code 108. For example, the transformation TX1 defines a transformation in the form that the string ABC, when it is encountered by a transformation system, is transformed into a particular random string of characters.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed.
Canard (US 20190050599) discloses an identification act identifying in the initial data a set of data that is “sensitive” that would be affected by personal data relating to one individual being added to or removed from the database; a partitioning act partitioning the sensitive data set into a plurality of subsets as a function of a sensitivity level of the sensitive data; a determination act determining a sensitivity level for each subset; and an anonymization act anonymizing the initial data and including, for each subset, adding noise to the sensitive data of that subset with a noise level that depends on the sensitivity level determined for the subset.
Ding (US 20190236306) discloses remotely analyzing testing results based on LDP-based data obtained from client devices in order to determine an effect of a software application with respect to its features and/or the population in which the application is tested. The analysis is based on a series of statistical computations for conducting hypothesis tests to compare population means, while ensuring LDP for each user. For example, an LDP scheme is used on the client-side that privatizes a measured value corresponding to a usage of a resource of the client. A data collector receives the privatized data from two sets of populations. Each population's clients have a software application that may differ in terms of features or user group. The privatized data received from each population is analyzed to determine an effect of the difference between the software applications of the different populations.
KULKARNI (US 20180189164) discloses For each of the plurality of users, the facility (a) randomly selects an upward-rounding window size that is smaller than the segment size; (b) for each source value in a domain, randomly determines a mapping of each segment of the domain to a segment identifier value; (c) determines an original value for the user; (d) adds the upward-rounding window size to the user's original value to obtain a window-augmented original value; (e) identifies a segment containing the window-augmented original value; (f) identifies a segment identifier value mapped-to from the identified segment using the determined mapping; and (g) transmits a reporting communication on the user's behalf reporting a value based on the identified segment identifier value.
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 TRANG T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Lynn D Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431