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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action, in responses Applicants’ amendments and remarks field 04/22/2026. It is noted, the current patent application was filed 05/11/2023; is a National Stage entry of PCT/SG2021/050681 , International Filing Date: 11/06/2021, claims foreign priority to 202011271081.0, filed 11/13/2020 . Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 17-23 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 are independent claims. Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 have been amended. Claim(s) 2 and 4-11 were original. Claim(s) 3 and 17-23 were previously presented. Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 have been cancelled.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 17-23 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because: The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: YES (Claim(s) is/are process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter). ... a data protection method, executed by a computer system, comprising: “acquiring gradient correlation information” respectively corresponding to reference samples of a target batch of an active participant of a joint “training model”; “determining a constraint condition for data noise” to be added according to proportions of a reference sample of a positive example and a reference sample of a negative example respectively in all the reference samples of the target batch; “determining information of the data noise” to be added according to the gradient correlation information corresponding to the reference samples and the constraint condition; “correcting an initial gradient transfer value” corresponding to each of the reference samples according to the information of the data noise to be added to obtain target gradient transfer information, wherein the target gradient transfer information is consistent for reference samples corresponding to different sample labels in the target batch; and “sending the target gradient transfer information to a passive participant of the joint training model”, so that the passive participant adjusts a parameter of the joint training model according to the target gradient transfer information...
and therefore, fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter).
Step 2A : Prong One: ( whether a claim recites a judicial exception ?) the claim(s) recite a data protection method, executed by a computer system, comprising: process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter... for “acquiring gradient correlation information” respectively corresponding to reference samples of a target batch of an active participant of a joint “training model”; “determining a constraint condition for data noise” to be added according to proportions of a reference sample of a positive example and a reference sample of a negative example respectively in all the reference samples of the target batch; “determining information of the data noise to be added” according to the gradient correlation information corresponding to the reference samples and the constraint condition; “correcting an initial gradient transfer value” corresponding to each of the reference samples according to the information of the data noise to be added to obtain target gradient transfer information, wherein the target gradient transfer information is consistent for reference samples corresponding to different sample labels in the target batch; and “sending the target gradient transfer information to a passive participant of the joint training model”, so that the passive participant adjusts a parameter of the joint training model according to the target gradient transfer information ...These limitation(s) recite mental processes and mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations)....since “acquiring gradient correlation information” ...of a joint “training model”; and “determining a constraint condition for data noise” to be added according to proportions of a reference sample of a positive example and a reference sample of a negative example respectively in all the reference samples of the target batch; ... “correcting an initial gradient transfer value” corresponding to each of the reference samples according to the information of the data noise to be added to obtain target gradient transfer information, wherein the target gradient transfer information is consistent for reference samples corresponding to different sample labels in the target batch; and “sending the target gradient transfer information to a passive participant of the joint training model”, is high level mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations). ..[See PGPUB 20240005210 A1 Para(s) 34 and 44-54 also equation(s) 1-6 for details]....moreover, the claim(s) recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., “acquiring gradient correlation information” ...of a joint “training model” and “determining a constraint condition for data noise” to be added ... [“APPLY IT].
Step 2A : Prong Two (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as ... data protection executed by “computer system” and sending the target gradient transfer information to a passive participant of the joint training model, so that the passive participant adjusts a parameter of the joint training model according to the target gradient transfer information.... The limitations of sending the gradient information to a passive participant who adjusts a parameter only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering... The limitations of sending the gradient information to a passive participant who adjusts a parameter only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Also, These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) (i.e., “computer system” ) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)). it is noted, the improvement in the abstract idea itself ... but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application...
As to the dependent claim(s) 2-11, 17-20 and 21-23, further recite, addition limitation(s) such as, variance of the data noise, sum of a product, trace of a matrix of covariance information of the data noise, positive/negative example less than or equal to a target value of a preset hyper-parameter, preset hyper-parameter, parameter condition, initial gradient transfer value, an error of label prediction, preset hyper-parameter does not meet the parameter condition, error threshold, sample label/sample class, gradient correlation information, mixed prediction error. maximizes a minimum value of the mixed prediction error, prediction error rate, a weighted sum, gradient of a preset loss function, neuron in an output layer of a sub-model trained by the passive participant of the joint training mode, fixed proportion or a gradually decreased dynamic proportion, calculate a L2-norm value, where the L2-norm value is greater than a preset threshold, and determine the prediction label corresponding to the reference sample as the negative example in a case where the L2-norm value is less than or equal to the preset threshold, ...etc., These limitation(s) only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea ...and do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Accordingly, claims 1-11, 13-14 and 17-23 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner recommends to incorporate the limitations as recites in Para 22 of the current specification(s) (i.e. USPGPUB 20240005210 A)... and some of the limitations from dependent claim(s) 4-5 into independent claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 ...(i.e.... whether a current value of the preset hyper-parameter meets a parameter condition;... and determining the information of the data noise to be added corresponding to the reference sample ... that maximizes a minimum value of the mixed prediction error corresponding to each of the prediction methods and meets the constraint condition....wherein the gradient correlation information respectively corresponding to the reference samples of the target batch of the active participant of the joint training model is acquired... Therefore, consistency of the corrected gradient transfer information corresponding to the positive and negative samples is ensured, and data information of the active participant is prevented from being leaked through the gradient transfer information, so that data security is protected effectively. ....)... may overcome the above stated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 17-23 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 rejection(s).
Reason for Allowance
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation which is consistence with the Applicant's Specification, the prior arts of recorded when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations recited in claims 1, 13 and 14 when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, especially the concept of, “... data protection method, executed by a computer system, comprising: acquiring gradient correlation information respectively corresponding to reference samples of a target batch of an active participant of a joint training model; wherein determining a constraint condition for data noise to be added according to proportions of a reference sample of a positive example and a reference sample of a negative example respectively in all the reference samples of the target batch; and determining information of the data noise to be added according to the gradient correlation information corresponding to the reference samples and the constraint condition; wherein correcting an initial gradient transfer value corresponding to each of the reference samples according to the information of the data noise to be added to obtain target gradient transfer information, wherein the target gradient transfer information is consistent for reference samples corresponding to different sample labels in the target batch; and sending the target gradient transfer information to a passive participant of the joint training model, so that the passive participant adjusts a parameter of the joint training model according to the target gradient transfer information ...” as claimed and further supports in the current specifications in Para 22 and the Abstract
In addition, neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claims 1, 13 and 14 as a whole. Thus, claims 1, 13 and 14 are allowed over the prior arts of record. Dependent claims 2-11 and 17-23 are also allowable due to its dependency of independent claims 1, 13 and 14; if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 rejection(s).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments/Remarks
This is Final Office Action, in responses Applicants’ amendments and remarks field 04/22/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection above, and further view of the following:
Moreover, Applicant argues, that 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being direct to nonpatentable subject matter should be “traversed” because, the currently amendment independent claim(s) 1 and 13-14 (i.e., “executed by a computer system”...) would render the claims “Qualify as Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C 101... (see the remarks filed 04/22/2026 pages 13-15 for details).
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection on above, Claims 1-11, 13-14 and 17-23 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because: The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Moreover, Step 2A : Prong Two (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as ... “computer system” data protection and sending the target gradient transfer information to a passive participant of the joint training model, so that the passive participant adjusts a parameter of the joint training model according to the target gradient transfer information.... The limitations of sending the gradient information to a passive participant who adjusts a parameter only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering... The limitations of sending the gradient information to a passive participant who adjusts a parameter only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) (i.e., “computer system” ) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)). it is noted, the improvement in the abstract idea itself ... but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application...
Also, After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues)....The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology or a technical field (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). [MPEP § 2106.05(a) Fourth and Fifth Para(s)] . See also Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential) (“Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality” that potentially meaningful technical limitations).
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.... (See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025) (Appeals Review Panel Decision)re dismissed without adequate explanation).
Accordingly, for at least all the above evidence Claims 1-11, 13-14 and 17-23 remain rejected. (The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 EST for Examiner interviews are available via telephone).
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 QUOC A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Cesar Paula can be reached at 571-272-4128. 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.
/QUOC A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights