DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 10/28/2022 and the Remarks and Amendments filed on 2/23/2026. Acknowledgment is made with respect to a claim of priority to Chinese Application CN202110046246.2 filed on 1/14/2021 and PCT Application PCT/CN2021/101319 filed on 6/21/2021.
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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 1: … setting relevant parameters of a Gradient Boosting Decision Tree model, including a maximum number of decision trees T, a maximum depth of trees L, an initial predicted value base, etc., and sending the relevant parameters to respective participants pi;: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of setting parameters, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2: letting a tree counter t=1: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of setting a counter, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 3: for each participant pi, initializing a training target of a kth tree yk=yk-1−ŷk-1; wherein y0=y, ŷ0=base: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of initializing a target, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 4: letting a tree layer counter l=1: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of setting a counter, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 5: letting a node counter of a current layer n=1: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of setting a counter, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 6: for each participant pi, determining a segmentation point of a local current node n according to the data of the current node and an optimal segmentation point algorithm and sending the segmentation point information to the coordinator;: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining a segmentation point, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 7: the coordinator counting the segmentation point information of all participants, and determining a segmentation feature f and a segmentation value v according to an epsilon-greedy algorithm: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of counting information and determining a segmentation feature, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 9: each participant segmenting a data set of the current node according to the segmentation feature f and the segmentation value v,: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of segmenting data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 10: letting n=n+1, and continuing with the Step 3 if n is less than or equal to a maximum number of nodes in the current layer; otherwise, proceeding to a next step: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of setting a counter and initializing training targets, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 11: resetting the node information of the current layer according to the child nodes of a node of a lth layer, so that l=l+1, and continuing with the Step 5 if l is less than or equal to the maximum tree depth L; otherwise, proceeding to a next step: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of resetting information, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 12: letting t=t+1, and continuing with the Step 3 if t is greater than or equal to the maximum number of decision trees T; otherwise, ending: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of setting a counter and initializing training targets, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “a coordinator”, “Step 8, the coordinator sending the finally determined segmentation information, including the determined segmentation feature f and segmentation value v, to respective participants”, “distributing new segmentation data to child nodes”, and “wherein a histogram is statistical information representing the first-order gradient and the second-order gradient in node data, and the statistical information contains user information”.
The additional element of “a coordinator” amounts to a generic computer component used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “Step 8, the coordinator sending the finally determined segmentation information, including the determined segmentation feature f and segmentation value v, to respective participants”, and “distributing new segmentation data to child nodes” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “wherein a histogram is statistical information representing the first-order gradient and the second-order gradient in node data, and the statistical information contains user information” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “a coordinator” amounts to a generic computer component used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “Step 8, the coordinator sending the finally determined segmentation information, including the determined segmentation feature f and segmentation value v, to respective participants”, and “distributing new segmentation data to child nodes” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional element of “wherein a histogram is statistical information representing the first-order gradient and the second-order gradient in node data, and the statistical information contains user information” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the optimal segmentation point algorithm in the Step 3: determines a segmentation objective function, including an objective function … traversing the candidate list of segmentation values to find the segmentation point that makes the objective function optimal according to an optimization procedure;: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mathematical concepts of determining an objective function, determining a list of segmentation values, and traversing the segmentation values to optimize an objective function, which are performed through mathematical computations as evidenced by paragraphs [0019-0030] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the Epsilon greedy algorithm in the Step 7 comprises … the coordinator determining a global segmentation value according to the following formula …: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mathematical concepts of determining segmentation values and features using a greedy algorithm, which are performed through mathematical computations as evidenced by paragraphs [0031-0034] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “distributing the segmentation value to each participant to perform node segmentation” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the horizontal federated learning is a distributed structure of federated learning, in which each distributed node has the same data feature and different sample spaces” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the Gradient Boosting Decision Tree algorithm is an integrated model based on gradient boosting and decision tree” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the decision tree is a model related to a Gradient Boosting Decision Tree model, and a prediction direction of a sample is judged at the node by given features based on a tree structure” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the segmentation point is a segmentation position of non-leaf nodes in the decision tree for data segmentation” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein an input device can be one or more of data terminals such as computers and mobile phones or mobile terminals” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein an input device comprises a processor, and when executed by the processor, the algorithm of any one of steps 1 to 12 is implemented” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 2/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 2/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues “claim 1 recites ‘a histogram is statistical information representing the first-order gradient and the second-order gradient in node data, and the statistical information contains user information’, and therefore, it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of how to reduce the possibility of user privacy leakage”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “wherein a histogram is statistical information representing the first-order gradient and the second-order gradient in node data, and the statistical information contains user information” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Applicant has failed to provide any evidence or arguments as to why this limitation is not directed towards a field of use limitation, nor has Applicant identified any other additional elements in the claims that provide a technical improvement, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues “the supported horizontal federated learning includes participants and coordinators, wherein the participants have local data, the coordinators do not have any data, and the center for information aggregation of participants; participants calculate histograms separately and send them to the coordinators; after summarizing all histogram information, the coordinators find the optimal segmentation points according to the greedy algorithm, and then share them with respective participants to facilitate work with internal algorithms, reducing the possibility of user privacy leakage. The claim 1 reflects the improving means, and as a whole improves the technology of reducing the possibility of user privacy leakage”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to identify any additional elements in the claims that provide a technical improvement, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection, and the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims is 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 Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. 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.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights