DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 – 11 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 12 – 21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 12 deals with receiving an indication from a service provider based on compliance and causing the model to be loaded based on the indication. Claims 13 – 21 deals with, based on an expected data model pipeline, allowing access to secured data generated by the artificial intelligence model
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 3– 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck, publication number: US 2020/0389491 in view of Yu, publication number: US 2020/0320349.
As per claim 1, Buck teaches an apparatus comprising:
A computing device comprising a memory and processing circuitry (Device 104, [0030]), the processing circuitry is to:
Generate a statement comprising a control plane indicator and information associated with a machine learning model, the control plane indicator reflecting a state of a control plane of a computing device during execution of the machine learning model by the computing device (hardware verification, [0062][0095], metadata related to Machine learning execution environment, [0067]);
Generate, using an attestation key associated with the apparatus, a signature for the statement;
Sign, using the signature, the statement to produce a signed statement (signing using a key associated with the device, [0061]) and
Transmit, via a network connection to a service provider, the signed statement and the signature (Forwarding signed result to a remote service, [0067]),
Buck does not teach receive, from a service provider, a machine learning model
Store, in the memory, the machine learning model
The control pane indicator reflecting a state of a control plane of the computing device during execution of the machine learning model by the computing device, wherein the control plane indicator reflects, at the time the computing device executes the machine learning model, a state of a control plane of the computing device, wherein the control plane indicator comprises information about a least part of the a data pipeline set-up of the computing device for executing the machine learning model, the data pipeline set-up including how data is to be pre-processed before being directed to the machine learning model.
In an analogous art, Yu teaches receive, from a service provider, a machine learning model
Store, in the memory, the machine learning model (local machine learning models, [0028][0043][0059])
The control pane indicator reflecting a state of a control plane of the computing device during execution of the machine learning model by the computing device, wherein the control plane indicator reflects, at the time the computing device executes the machine learning model, a state of a control plane of the computing device, wherein the control plane indicator comprises information about a least part of the a data pipeline set-up of the computing device for executing the machine learning model, the data pipeline set-up including how data is to be pre-processed before being directed to the machine learning model (requesting model update, [0089], request including training data compliance information, [0009][0044]).
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buck’ secure execution environment to include training data compliance information as described in Yu’s machine learning system for the advantage of ensuring compliance.
As per claim 3, the combination teaches where the control plane indicator is to indicate that a data pipeline set-up of the computing device for executing the machine learning model complies with a model execution specification associated with the machine learning model (Buck: Hardware verification, [0095]).
As per claim 4, the combination teaches where the information regarding the machine learning model comprises an identity indicator of a signer controlling a first version of the machine learning model (Buck: Identity, [0054]).
As per claim 5, the combination teaches where the statement further comprises an execution indicator associated with using the computing device to execute the machine learning model (Buck: Identity, [0054]).
As per claim 6, the combination teaches where the execution indicator comprises an outcome due to a machine learning module of the computing device executing the machine learning model (Buck: result, [0067]).
As per claim 7, the combination teaches where the outcome comprises a result of executing the machine learning model on input data received by the computing device (Buck: signed input data, [0066]).
As per claim 8, the combination teaches where the outcome comprises a chain of hashed decisions made by the computing device when executing the machine learning model (Buck: signed result, [0067]).
As per claim 9, the combination teaches where the execution indicator comprises an input to a machine learning module of the computing device (Buck: input, [0067]).
As per claim 11, the combination teaches where the execution indicator comprises a result of testing input data monitored by a testing module of the computing device, where the testing module is to test whether or not the input data is anomalous as specified by a model execution specification associated with the machine learning model (Buck: check for compromise, [0053-0054]).
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck, publication number: US 2020/0389491 in view of Yu, publication number: US 2020/0320349 in further view of Coenders, publication number: US 2021/0150411.
As per claim 10, Buck and Yu teach verifying machine learning model execution context and metadata related to machine learning execution contexts Buck [0067].
The combination does not teach where the execution indicator comprises information regarding a second version of the machine learning model developed in response to the computing device training a first version of the machine learning model.
In an analogous art, Coenders teaches where the execution indicator comprises information regarding a second version of the machine learning model developed in response to the computing device training a first version of the machine learning model (tracking updates related to update machine learning models, [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buck and Yu’s execution context tracking model version information as described in Coender’s model registration system for the advantage of further ensuring model authentication and validation.
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 OLUGBENGA O IDOWU whose telephone number is (571)270-1450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 5712723804. 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.
/OLUGBENGA O IDOWU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights