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 action is responsive to the Application filed on 4/20/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202241024103, filed on 4/25/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 itis 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. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-5 are drawn to an apparatus, claim 6 is drawn to a method and claims 7-11 are drawn to recording medium storing a computer program, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 12 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method for secure training of an artificial intelligence (AI) model by an electronic device, wherein the method comprises: determining, by the electronic device, a first set of layers from a base AI model for performing training in a secure mode; determining, by the electronic device, a second set of layers other than the first set of layers in the base AI model; simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode and the second set of layers in a non-secure mode; and generating, by the electronic device, the AI model by combining the trained first set of layers and the trained second set of layers in the secure mode.“
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining, by the electronic device, a first set of layers from a base AI model for performing training in a secure mode;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “determining, by the electronic device, a second set of layers other than the first set of layers in the base AI model;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “artificial intelligence (AI) model”, “simultaneously training, by the electronic device” and “generating, by the electronic device, the AI model” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence (AI) model” , “simultaneously training, by the electronic device” and “generating, by the electronic device, the AI model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “electronic device” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “artificial intelligence (AI) model”, “simultaneously training, by the electronic device” and “generating, by the electronic device, the AI model” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence (AI) model” , “simultaneously training, by the electronic device” and “generating, by the electronic device, the AI model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “electronic device” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-11 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 13-20 which are dependent on claim 12, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claims 2 and 13
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1 and 12.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining, by the electronic device, an importance score for each layer of the plurality of layers based on an amount of data available in each layer of the plurality of layers; determining, by the electronic device, at least one layer of the plurality of layers having the importance score greater than an importance score threshold; and determining, by the electronic device, the first set of layers of the plurality of layers having the importance score greater than the importance score threshold” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, this limitation “receiving, by the electronic device, the base AI model comprising a plurality of layers;” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “receiving, by the electronic device, the base AI model comprising a plurality of layers;” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 3 and 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, this limitation “sending, by the electronic device, the verified dataset and the encrypted base AI model with the first set of layers to a second portion of the electronic device for training the first set of layers in the secure mode.” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “sending”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “sending, by the electronic device, the verified dataset and the encrypted base AI model with the first set of layers to a second portion of the electronic device for training the first set of layers in the secure mode.” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “sending”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 4 and 15
Incorporates the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, this limitation “selecting, by the electronic device, the second set of layers from the base AI model; and sending, by the electronic device, the base AI model with the second set of layers to the first portion of the electronic device for training the second set of layers in the non-secure mode” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “selecting” and “sending”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “selecting, by the electronic device, the second set of layers from the base AI model; and sending, by the electronic device, the base AI model with the second set of layers to the first portion of the electronic device for training the second set of layers in the non-secure mode” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “selecting” and “sending”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 5 and 16
Incorporates the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, this limitation “host operating system” and “protected kernel virtual machine (PKVM)” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “host operating system” and “protected kernel virtual machine (PKVM)” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Dependent claims 6 and 17
Incorporates the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 7 and 18
Incorporates the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of dependent claims 3 and 14.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 8 and 19
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1 and 12.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim 1 and 12.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 9 and 20
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1 and 12.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim 1 and 12.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 10
Incorporates the rejection of dependent claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of dependent claim 9.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 11
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20220414223 A1) in view of “A Novel Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning Scheme without Using Cryptography Component”, Sun et al, 12/9/2020.
Referring to claims 1 and 12, Liu discloses a method for secure training of an artificial intelligence (AI) model by an electronic device, wherein the method comprises:
determining, by the electronic device, a first set of layers from a base AI model for performing training in a secure mode; ([0032] of Liu, “s provide for executing a portion (i.e., a first sub-model) of the AI model in a secure execution environment (i.e., in the secure part of the TEE platform) and another portion and/or remainder (i.e., a second sub-model) of the AI model outside the secure execution environment (i.e., in the non-secure part of the TEE platform) to protect the one or more data samples used to train the AI model.”)
determining, by the electronic device, a second set of layers other than the first set of layers in the base AI model; “[0036] of Liu, determining a first set of layers such as layer 306 is trained in a secure VM/mode and [0037] of Liu, a plurality of previous layers can be trained in secure VM/mode)
simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode and the second set of layers in a non-secure mode; “[0036] of Liu, determining a first set of layers such as layer 306 is trained in a secure VM/mode and [0037] of Liu, a plurality of previous layers can be trained in secure VM/mode).
Liu does not specifically disclose “generating, by the electronic device, the AI model by combining the trained first set of layers and the trained set of layers in the secure mode.”
However, Sun discloses generating, by the electronic device, the AI model by combining the trained first set of layers and the trained set of layers in the secure mode (pages 15-16 and Fig. 4 of Sun, a non-secure model is combined with a secure model to be trained in a secure mode).
Liu and Sun are analogous art because both references concern training data executed by VM and accessible through CPU. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu’s accessible data through CPU memory with AI models with layers with different access to memory kernels as taught by Sun. The motivation for doing so would have been make the hardware data access more secure.
Referring to claims 3, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 1, wherein training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode comprises:
selecting, by the electronic device, the first set of layers from the base AI model; ([0032] of Liu, “provide for executing a portion (i.e., a first sub-model) of the AI model in a secure execution environment (i.e., in the secure part of the TEE platform) and another portion and/or remainder (i.e., a second sub-model) of the AI model outside the secure execution environment (i.e., in the non-secure part of the TEE platform) to protect the one or more data samples used to train the AI model.”)
encrypting, by the electronic device, the base AI model using an encryption key after selecting the first set of layers from the base AI model; (Fig. 4 and [0036] of Liu, the layers trained with the secure mode/first set of layers with also be encrypted)
obtaining, by the electronic device, a training dataset from at least one application at a first portion of the electronic device; (Fig. 4 and [0036] of Liu, the data samples from direct access from application operators and only trained at the secure VM 402 which is a portion of the device)
verifying, by the electronic device, the training dataset at the first portion of the electronic device; ([0035] of Liu, verifier module verifies data within the VM) and
sending, by the electronic device, the verified dataset and the encrypted base AI model with the first set of layers to a second portion of the electronic device for training the first set of layers in the secure mode. (Fig. 4 and [0035]-[0036] of Liu, data from the secure VM is transmitted to the data owner service producer 406)
Referring to claims 6, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 3, wherein verifying, by the electronic device, the training dataset at the first portion of the electronic device comprises: determining, by the electronic device, a hash value of the training dataset; generating, by the electronic device, a digital signature from the hash value of the training dataset using the encryption key; and verifying, by the electronic device, the training dataset based on the generated digital signature. ([0021] of Liu, “FIG. 1 shows an SEV-SNP execution environment 100. More particularly, as shown, a VM 102 requests from a secure processor (SP) 104 an attestation report with a hash of a public key unique to VM 102. SP 104 generates the attestation report containing the hash of the public key unique to VM 102, cryptographically signs the attestation report with a versioned chip endorsement key (VCEK), and returns the attestation report to VM 102. VM 102 sends the attestation report and its public key to a remote party 106. The attestation report, signed by SP 104, enables remote party 106 to verify the identity/authenticity of VM 102. Once VM 102 is verified, remote party 106 can safely return protected information to VM 102.”)
Referring to claims 7, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the method comprises training, by the electronic device, the base AI model by: decrypting, by the electronic device, the encrypted base AI model using a decryption key at the second portion of the electronic device; and training, by the electronic device, the base AI model using the training dataset. (Fig. 4 and [0035]-[0036] of Liu, “Data owner service provider 406 transmits the encrypted data samples to secure VM 402 in step 416. The encrypted data samples are then decrypted in secure VM 402 and, as clear-text, are input to the partition (i.e., first sub-model) inside secure VM 402 in step 418. Because the entire memory inside secure VM 402 is encrypted by the SP, the output O.sub.1 of first layer 304 (FIG. 3) is unknown outside secure VM 402. The model parameters M.sub.2 and b.sub.2 of the second layer 306 (FIG. 3) are also unknown outside secure VM 402, because they are initialized with random numbers inside secure VM 402 and cannot be accessed from outside secure VM 402.”)
Referring to claims 9 and 20, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 1, simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode and the second set of layers in the non-secure mode comprises:
selecting, by the electronic device, one type of training from a plurality of layer training types to train the first set of layers and the second set of layers; and simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode using the selected layer training type and the second set of layers in the non-secure mode using the same selected layer training type. (Fig. 4 and [0035]-[0036] of Liu, “Data owner service provider 406 transmits the encrypted data samples to secure VM 402 in step 416. The encrypted data samples are then decrypted in secure VM 402 and, as clear-text, are input to the partition (i.e., first sub-model) inside secure VM 402 in step 418. Because the entire memory inside secure VM 402 is encrypted by the SP, the output O.sub.1 of first layer 304 (FIG. 3) is unknown outside secure VM 402. The model parameters M.sub.2 and b.sub.2 of the second layer 306 (FIG. 3) are also unknown outside secure VM 402, because they are initialized with random numbers inside secure VM 402 and cannot be accessed from outside secure VM 402.”)
Referring to claim 11, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: encrypting, by the electronic device, the AI model; transmitting, by the electronic device, the encrypted AI model to at least one application of the electronic device; and performing, by the electronic device, at least one inference action in the at least one application using the encrypted AI model. ([0016] of Liu, “In order to attempt to protect data samples for training an AI model, such as a deep learning model based on an artificial full connection neural network, from being directly accessed by application service providers (e.g., the auto-driving system operators such as company A in the above scenario) and/or third-parties, various existing solutions have been proposed.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20220414223 A1) in view of “A Novel Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning Scheme without Using Cryptography Component”, Sun et al, 12/9/2020 and in further view of Xiao (US 20230117247 A1).
Referring to claim 8, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 1, simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode and the second set of layers in the non-secure mode comprises: selecting, by the electronic device, at least one first type of training from a plurality of layer training types to train the first set of layers (see citations above).
Liu in view of Sun do not specifically disclose “selecting, by the electronic device, at least one second type of training from the plurality of layer training types to train the second set of layers, wherein the at least one first type of training is different than the at least one second type of training; and simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode using the at least one first type of training and the second set of layers in the non-secure mode using the at least one second type of training.”
However, Xiao in view of Liu and Sun as stated above discloses selecting, by the electronic device, at least one second type of training from the plurality of layer training types to train the second set of layers, wherein the at least one first type of training is different than the at least one second type of training; and simultaneously training, by the electronic device, the first set of layers in the secure mode using the at least one first type of training and the second set of layers in the non-secure mode using the at least one second type of training ([0040] of Xiao, “ if input 224 is a structured input, the neural extractor might implement a fully connected neural network or a recurrent neural network to extract the latent representation. Alternatively, if input 224 is a non-structured input, the neural extractor might use a convolutional neural network and a transformer-based machine learning model for extraction of latent representation.” Hence, different data can be trained with different types of training method.)
Liu and Sun and Xiao are analogous art because both references concern training data executed and trained by NN. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu’s accessible data through CPU memory with AI models with layers with different access to memory kernels as taught by Sun and different training method for different types of data as taught by Xiao. The motivation for doing so would have been more efficient to use different training methods for different types of data to train.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20220414223 A1) in view of “A Novel Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning Scheme without Using Cryptography Component”, Sun et al, 12/9/2020 and in further view of Xiao (US 20230117247 A1) and in further view of Nussinovitch et al (US 20230252311 A1).
Referring to claim 10, Liu in view of Sun disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of layer training types comprises: a regular training type; a transfer learning training type. ([0016] of Liu, deep learning model and a fully connection neural network and federate learning) Liu in view of Sun do not specifically disclose a continual learning training type; and reinforcement learning training type.
However, Xiao discloses a continual learning training type; and reinforcement learning training type. ([0040] of Xiao, “if input 224 is a structured input, the neural extractor might implement a fully connected neural network or a recurrent neural network to extract the latent representation. Alternatively, if input 224 is a non-structured input, the neural extractor might use a convolutional neural network and a transformer-based machine learning model for extraction of latent representation.” Hence, different data can be trained with different types of training method.)
Liu and Sun and Xiao are analogous art because both references concern training data executed and trained by NN. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu’s accessible data through CPU memory with AI models with layers with different access to memory kernels as taught by Sun and different training method for different types of data as taught by Xiao. The motivation for doing so would have been more efficient to use different training methods for different types of data to train.
Liu and Sun and Xiao do not specifically disclose “a few shot learning training type; and a shallow learning training type.”
However, Nussinovitch discloses a few shot learning training type; and a shallow learning training type ([0001] of Nussinovitch).
Liu and Sun and Xiao and Nussinovitch are analogous art because both references concern training data executed and trained by NN. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu’s accessible data through CPU memory with AI models with layers with different access to memory kernels as taught by Sun and different training method for different types of data as taught by Xiao and different training methods as taught by Nussinovitch. The motivation for doing so would have been more efficient to use different training methods for different types of data to train.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 19 are 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.
The 101 rejection still remains.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Rogers et al (US 20230297696 A1, provisional application filed on 3/21/2022): a parallel processing unit (PPU) operates within a trusted execution environment (TEE) implemented using a central processing unit (CPU). A virtual machine (VM) executing within the TEE is provided access to the PPU by a hypervisor. However, data of an application executed by the VM is inaccessible to the hypervisor and other untrusted entities outside of the TEE. To protect the data in transit, the VM and the PPU may encrypt or decrypt the data for secure communication between the devices. To protect the data within the PPU, a protected memory region may be created in PPU memory where compute engines of the PPU are prevented from writing outside of the protected memory region. A write protect memory region is generated where access to the PPU memory is blocked from other computing devices and/or device instances.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142