DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/238754 filed on August 28, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The drawings (specifically Figures 4-5) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details as described in the specification. This drawings only recite reference numbers without describing what the reference numbers refer to in any way. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on August 29, 2022 (PCTCN2022115638).
Claim Analysis – 35 USC § 112 (f)
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: “a contextualizer configured to …” in claim 1, “an anonymizer for …” in claims 1, 14, and 20, “a background knowledge model builder configured to …” in claim 4, “a background knowledge relaxation facilitator configured to …” in claim 7, and “the anonymizer configured to …” in claim 8.
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.
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.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification does not appear to clearly show the corresponding structure for the claimed elements. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 112(b) for failing to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure is used to perform the claimed function. Please also see the 112(b) rejection below for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “one or more attributes of data representing a data consumer’s background knowledge for the target dataset”; however, it is unclear how the system can know what data the data consumer has background knowledge of for the target dataset.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected for the same reasons as cited above and for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
Claim 20 recites “the computer readable code being configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor …”; however, it is unclear what a “suitable” computer or processor would be.
Claim limitations “a contextualizer configured to …” in claim 1, “an anonymizer for …” in claims 1, 14, and 20, “a background knowledge model builder configured to …” in claim 4, “a background knowledge relaxation facilitator configured to …” in claim 7, and “the anonymizer configured to …” in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1-20 are considered to be indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The examiner has cited particular examples of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant check the claims for further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections in the event that it was inadvertently missed by the examiner to advance prosecution.
The Examiner has noted significant issues supra as to the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112. Presently, the pending claims do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is. The following prior art rejections are based upon the examiner’s best interpretation of the claims. In light of the precedence set forth in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970), the Examiner applies cited art in accordance with a position as best understood in the context of the claims and the invention as a whole to expedite compact prosecution. Such interpretations of the claims versus the cited art cannot be used as a basis for overcoming the objections or rejections set forth supra. Any claim not objected or rejected in view of art does not ascribe allowable subject matter, but remains pending and rejected under their respective titles supra.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 2010/0114840) in view of CN 107958068 hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
As per claims 1, 14, and 20, Srivastava discloses A system for facilitating anonymization of a target dataset, comprising:
a contextualizer configured to match, in a matching operation, one or more target attributes of the target dataset with one or more attributes of data representing a data consumer's background knowledge for the target dataset to generate a contextualized data consumer's background knowledge, representative of the data consumer's background knowledge … (Srivastava, paragraphs 3, 33, 46-49, 53-57, teaches using an attackers background knowledge to determine how to anonymize data. Srivastava, paragraphs 47 and 54, teaches positive correlation as well as comparing salaries; both of which require a matching/comparison. Srivastava, paragraphs 33 and 46-47, teaches generating a background distribution from the background model.); and
… provide the contextualized data consumer's background knowledge data to an anonymizer for anonymizing the target dataset (Srivastava, paragraphs 3, 33, 46-49, 53-57, teaches using an attackers background knowledge to determine how to anonymize data. Srivastava, Figure 2 and associated texts and paragraph 33, teaches a data privacy controller to perform the anonymization.)
However, Srivastava does not specifically teach “generate a contextualized data consumer's background knowledge, representative of the data consumer's background knowledge relative to the target dataset”.
Zhao discloses generate a contextualized data consumer's background knowledge, representative of the data consumer's background knowledge relative to the target dataset (Zhao, page 6, teaches constructing a background knowledge model that is related to the topic in question.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Zhao with the teachings of Srivastava. Srivastava teaches using an attackers background knowledge to anonymize data to prevent giving the attacker more information than they already have. Zhao teaches that the background knowledge can be modeled based on the topic in question. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modeled the background knowledge of Srivastava based on the topic in question (the dataset to be anonymized of Srivastava) in order to provide more relevant background knowledge to be used in the anonymization process.
Additionally, Srivastava in view of Zhao teaches a single “data privacy controller” to perform the anonymization and does not specifically teach “output interface configured to” send the “contextualized data consumer’s background knowledge data” to the anonymizer for anonymization. However, it would have been obvious to have a single module (data privacy controller) perform the anonymization or divide the tasks up and have multiple modules perform the same anonymization steps as this would have been an obvious design choice.
Claim 14 recites the additional limitation of “A computer-implemented method for facilitating dataset anonymization, comprising …” (Srivastava, paragraphs 6, 32, and 39, teaches performing the invention using a system, method, or computer program product.)
Claim 20 recites the additional limitation of “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein, the computer readable code being configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor, the computer or processor is caused to …” (Srivastava, paragraphs 6, 32, and 39, teaches performing the invention using a system, method, or computer program product.)
As per claims 2 and 15, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses wherein the matching operation is based on a similarity measure (Srivastava, paragraphs 47 and 54, teaches positive correlation as well as comparing salaries; both of which require a matching/comparison. Zhao, page 6, teaches using a language model.)
As per claims 3 and 16, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses wherein the similarity measure includes a natural language similarity measure (Zhao, page 6, teaches using a language model.)
As per claims 4 and 17, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses further comprising a background knowledge model builder configured to construct a background knowledge model for the target dataset to model the data consumer's background knowledge relative to the target dataset, based on the contextualized data consumer's background knowledge (Srivastava, paragraphs 33 and 46-47, teaches modeling the attackers background knowledge as background distributions. Srivastava, paragraph 147, teaches using different background distributions for different parts of the data. Zhao, page 6, teaches constructing a background knowledge model that is related to the topic in question.)
As per claims 5 and 18, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses wherein the target dataset comprises multiple data tables, and wherein the contextualized data consumer's background knowledge relates to a given one of such multiple data table, and/or to plural such data tables collectively (Srivastava, paragraph 34, teaches that the database can store various data structures and be partitioned into sets. Srivastava, paragraph 147, teaches using different background distributions for different parts of the data. Zhao, page 6, teaches constructing a background knowledge model that is related to the topic in question.)
As per claims 6 and 19, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses wherein the target dataset comprises multiple data tables, and wherein the background knowledge model includes at least one part constructed per one data table, and/or at least one other part constructed per plural data tables (Srivastava, paragraph 34, teaches that the database can store various data structures and be partitioned into sets. Srivastava, paragraph 147, teaches using different background distributions for different parts of the data. Zhao, page 6, teaches constructing a background knowledge model that is related to the topic in question.)
As per claim 7, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising a background knowledge relaxation facilitator configured to restructure the contextualized data consumer's background knowledge, based on a pre-defined set of one or more rules (Zhao, page 6, teaches constructing a background knowledge model that is related to the topic in question.)
As per claim 8, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the anonymizer configured to anonymize the target dataset based on the background knowledge model (Srivastava, paragraphs 3, 33, 46-49, 53-57, teaches using an attackers background knowledge and the background distributions to determine how to anonymize data.)
As per claim 10, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more target attributes are identified by a dataset explorer based on one or more descriptive quantities that describe a data structure of the target dataset (Srivastava, Figure 3, shows the column headings such as name, zip code, gender, and salary.)
As per claim 11, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more descriptive quantities describe one or more statistical properties of the target dataset (Srivastava, Figure 3, shows the column headings such as name, zip code, gender, and salary.)
As per claim 12, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the data representing data consumer's background knowledge is different from the target dataset (Srivastava, paragraphs 3, 33, 46-49, 53-57, teaches using an attackers background knowledge and the background distributions to determine how to anonymize data. Srivastava, paragraphs 3, 46-47, and 54, teaches that the background knowledge is public information while the data to be anonymized is not as shown in Figure3. Therefore, the data to be anonymized and the background knowledge are different.)
As per claim 13, Srivastava in view of Zhao discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the contextualized data consumer's background knowledge is represented as one or more quasi-identifiers (Srivastava, paragraphs 55 and 80, teaches that the quasi-identifiers remain unchanged. Srivastava, paragraph 54, shows the possibility that the zip code can be modified to only show the first 3 digits. In the example, in paragraph 54, Nancy’s neighbor/attacker knows Nancy’s zip code which is shown as a quasi-identifier in Figure 3.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming the 35 USC 112 Rejections. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, “wherein the data representing data consumer's background knowledge is identified by the contextualizer based on at least a profile of the data consumer from a data library representing background knowledge". The closest prior art of record includes:
Srivastava (US 2010/0114840) – teaches using an attackers background knowledge to anonymize data.
WO 2013/186216 – teaches that the meaning of a word can be different based on the background knowledge of the user.
Bezzi (US 2015/0007249) – teaches on-the-fly data anonymization.
Zhao (CN 107958068) – teaches constructing a background knowledge model that is related to the topic in question.
However, the combination of limitations as currently claimed cannot be found in the cited prior art of record.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Choudhury (US 2021/0150269) – paragraph 35 and Figure 4 and associated texts, teaches anonymizing quasi-identifiers based on the background knowledge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498