DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 5/31/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “applying [] a first perturbation to group membership values of a first subset of the set of users” 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 “applying [] a second perturbation to perturb data values for the first subset of the set of users based on the applied first perturbation” 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 “wherein the perturbed set of users corresponds to users of the set of users with perturbed data values, perturbed group membership values, or a combination thereof” 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, the limitation “obtaining, with a computer system, group membership values and data values for a set of users” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “outputting, with the computer system, data values and group membership values for a perturbed set of users” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “obtaining, with a computer system, group membership values and data values for a set of users” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, 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).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “outputting, with the computer system, data values and group membership values for a perturbed set of users” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, 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).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the model is a federated learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “outputting is performed by storing the data values and group membership values in memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the model is a federated learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “outputting is performed by storing the data values and group membership values in memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, 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).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the data values are performance values of the model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the data values are performance values of the model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the data values are performance values of the model as measured by a client” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the data values are performance values of the model as measured by a client” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the first perturbation comprises generating a perturbed group membership value which is different than the group membership value for a first portion of the first subset of the set of users” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein the first perturbation maintains a group membership value with a probability
a
and perturbs a group membership value with a probability 1−
a
for the first portion of the first subset of the set of users” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein the first perturbation is a randomized response perturbation” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the second perturbation comprises: applying a third perturbation to perturb data values for the first portion of the first subset of users” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein the third perturbation maintains an expectation value for the data values of the portion of the first subset of the set of users” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the second perturbation comprises: applying a fourth perturbation to perturb data values for a second portion of the first subset of the set of users, where users of the second portion of the first subset of the set of user comprise users for whom first perturbation maintains the group membership value” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the fourth second perturbation comprises applying a discretization or a randomized response perturbation” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the fourth second perturbation comprises applying a Laplacian perturbation” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “applying, with the computer system, a first perturbation to a group membership values of the user” 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 “applying, with the computer system, a second perturbation to data values of the user based on the applied first perturbation” 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, the limitation “obtaining, with a computer system, group membership values and data values of a user” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “outputting, with the computer system, perturbed data values and perturbed group membership values of the user” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “obtaining, with a computer system, group membership values and data values of a user” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, 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).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “[applying,] with the computer system” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “outputting, with the computer system, perturbed data values and perturbed group membership values of the user” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, 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).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the model is a federated learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “outputting is performed by storing the perturbed data values and the perturbed group membership values in memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the model is a federated learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “outputting is performed by storing the perturbed data values and the perturbed group membership values in memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, 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).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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, the limitation “wherein the data values are performance values of the model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the data values are performance values of the model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the first perturbation comprises generating a perturbed group membership value which is different than the group membership value for the user with a probability 1−
a
and maintaining the group membership value with a probability
a
” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the second perturbation comprises applying a third perturbation to perturb data values for the user if the perturbed group membership value is different than the group membership value” 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 “wherein the third perturbation maintains an expectation value of data values” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein the third perturbation generates an expectation value of zero for perturbed data values” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein applying the second perturbation comprises applying a fourth perturbation to perturb data values for the user if the perturbed group membership value is the same as the group membership value” 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 “wherein the fourth perturbation maintains an expectation value of data values” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
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 “wherein the fourth perturbation randomizes data values while maintaining an expectation value” 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).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyễn et al. (“Collecting and Analyzing Data from Smart Device Users with Local Differential Privacy,” 16 June 2016, https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05053, hereinafter Nguyễn) in view of Bernau et al. (US 2020/0394320 A1, hereinafter Bernau).
As to independent claim 1, Nguyễn teaches a method for determining a performance gap of a model for users of different groups, comprising:
obtaining, with a computer system, [first] values and data values for a set of users (“We can straightforwardly improve these existing approaches by perturbing ∇ℓ′ using Algorithm 2,” page 7 section “4.1 Basic Methods” paragraph 3 lines 7-8);
applying, with the computer system, a first perturbation to [first] values of a first subset of the set of users (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7);
applying, with the computer system, a second perturbation to perturb data values for the first subset of the set of users (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7) based on the applied first perturbation (“the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
,” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 2-3 – each tuple has a different attribute perturbed); and
outputting, with the computer system, data values and [first] values for a perturbed set of users, wherein the perturbed set of users corresponds to users of the set of users with perturbed data values, perturbed [first] values, or a combination thereof (“We can straightforwardly improve these existing approaches by perturbing ∇ℓ′ using Algorithm 2,” page 7 section “4.1 Basic Methods” paragraph 3 lines 7-8).
Nguyễn does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the [first] values are group membership values.
Bernau teaches a method wherein the [first] values are group membership values (“𝒜 tests membership for all training instances,” paragraph 0039 lines 27-28).
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 the [first] values of Nguyễn to comprise the group membership values of Bernau. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely perturbation of group membership values (“𝒜 tests membership for all training instances,” Bernau paragraph 0039 lines 27-28). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the first perturbation comprises generating a perturbed group membership value which is different than the group membership value for a first portion of the first subset of the set of users (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
,” Nguyễn page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-3).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein the first perturbation maintains a group membership value with a probability
a
and perturbs a group membership value with a probability 1−
a
for the first portion of the first subset of the set of users (“Each user
u
i
reports her true answer
t
i
A
j
with probability
p
, and a random answer with probability 1 −
p
,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 6-8).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein the first perturbation is a randomized response perturbation (“Randomized response,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 line 1).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the second perturbation comprises: applying a third perturbation to perturb data values for the first portion of the first subset of users (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein the third perturbation maintains an expectation value for the data values of the portion of the first subset of the set of users (“The latter has the same probability to be −1 and +1; hence, its expected value is zero,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 8-10).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the second perturbation comprises: applying a fourth perturbation to perturb data values for a second portion of the first subset of the set of users, where users of the second portion of the first subset of the set of user comprise users for whom first perturbation maintains the group membership value (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the fourth second perturbation comprises applying a discretization (“Note that we can convert a numeric attribute a categorical one (e.g., display brightness can be discretized to three levels: low, medium and high) and build a histogram accordingly,” Nguyễn page 5 column left line last to column right line 3) or a randomized response perturbation (“Randomized response,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 line 1).
As to dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the fourth second perturbation comprises applying a Laplacian perturbation (“a naïve design of the perturbation function
f
is to apply the Laplace Mechanism,” Nguyễn page 3 section “3.1 Estimating Mean Values for Numeric Attributes” lines 1-3).
As to independent claim 13, Nguyễn teaches a method for determining a performance gap of a model for users of different groups, comprising:
obtaining, with a computer system, [first] values and data values of a user (“We can straightforwardly improve these existing approaches by perturbing ∇ℓ′ using Algorithm 2,” page 7 section “4.1 Basic Methods” paragraph 3 lines 7-8);
applying, with the computer system, a first perturbation to a [first] values of the user (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7);
applying, with the computer system, a second perturbation to data values of the user (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7) based on the applied first perturbation (“the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
,” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 2-3 – each tuple has a different attribute perturbed); and
outputting, with the computer system, perturbed data values and perturbed [first] values of the user (“We can straightforwardly improve these existing approaches by perturbing ∇ℓ′ using Algorithm 2,” page 7 section “4.1 Basic Methods” paragraph 3 lines 7-8).
Nguyễn does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the [first] values are group membership values.
Bernau teaches a method wherein the [first] values are group membership values (“𝒜 tests membership for all training instances,” paragraph 0039 lines 27-28).
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 the [first] values of Nguyễn to comprise the group membership values of Bernau. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely perturbation of group membership values (“𝒜 tests membership for all training instances,” Bernau paragraph 0039 lines 27-28). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the first perturbation comprises generating a perturbed group membership value which is different than the group membership value for the user (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
,” Nguyễn page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-3) with a probability 1−
a
and maintaining the group membership value with a probability
a
(“Each user
u
i
reports her true answer
t
i
A
j
with probability
p
, and a random answer with probability 1 −
p
,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 6-8).
As to dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the second perturbation comprises applying a third perturbation to perturb data values for the user if the perturbed group membership value is different than the group membership value (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7), wherein the third perturbation maintains an expectation value of data values (“The latter has the same probability to be −1 and +1; hence, its expected value is zero,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 8-10).
As to dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein the third perturbation generates an expectation value of zero for perturbed data values (“The latter has the same probability to be −1 and +1; hence, its expected value is zero,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 8-10).
As to dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein applying the second perturbation comprises applying a fourth perturbation to perturb data values for the user if the perturbed group membership value is the same as the group membership value (“Algorithm 2 shows the pseudo-code of our method. Given a tuple
t
i
∈
-
1
,
1
d
, the algorithm returns a perturbed tuple
t
i
*
that has non-zero value on only one attribute
A
j
(
j
∊
d
)
. Specifically,
A
j
is selected uniformly at random from all
d
attributes of
t
i
, and
t
i
*
[
A
j
]
is sampled from the following distribution:
Pr
[
t
i
*
A
j
=
x
]
=
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
-
t
i
A
j
⋅
e
∊
-
1
+
e
∊
+
1
2
e
∊
+
2
,
i
f
x
=
-
e
∊
+
1
e
∊
-
1
⋅
d
(4),” page 4 column right paragraph 1 lines 1-7), wherein the fourth perturbation maintains an expectation value of data values (“The latter has the same probability to be −1 and +1; hence, its expected value is zero,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 8-10).
As to dependent claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau further teaches a method wherein the fourth perturbation randomizes data values (“Each user
u
i
reports her true answer
t
i
A
j
with probability
p
, and a random answer with probability 1 −
p
,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 6-8) while maintaining an expectation value (“The latter has the same probability to be −1 and +1; hence, its expected value is zero,” Nguyễn page 5 column right paragraph 1 lines 8-10).
Claims 2-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyễn in view of Bernau and Qian et al. (US 2021/0374605 A1, hereinafter Qian).
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Nguyễn/Bernau does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the model is a federated learning model and outputting is performed by storing the data values and group membership values in memory.
Qian teaches a method wherein the model is a federated learning model (“FIG. 4 illustrates an example architecture for perturbing gradients in federated learning,” paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) and outputting is performed by storing the data values and group membership values in memory (“a final pre-processing of the time-series based ACR user viewing data 110 before providing an output to the deep-learning model functional block 114 for training, cross-validating, and testing,” paragraph 0023 lines 13-17).
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 the model of Nguyễn/Bernau to comprise the federated learning model of Qian. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely perturbation for federated learning (“FIG. 4 illustrates an example architecture for perturbing gradients in federated learning,” Qian paragraph 0039 lines 1-2). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau/Qian further teaches a method wherein the data values are performance values of the model (“The model trainer 330 may perform the duty of federated learning locally, e.g., calculating the loss using user data 310,” Qian paragraph 0038 lines 20-22).
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Nguyễn/Bernau/Qian further teaches a method wherein the data values are performance values of the model as measured by a client (“The model trainer 330 may perform the duty of federated learning locally, e.g., calculating the loss using user data 310,” Qian paragraph 0038 lines 20-22).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated.
Nguyễn/Bernau does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the model is a federated learning model and outputting is performed by storing the perturbed data values and the perturbed group membership values in memory.
Qian teaches a method wherein the model is a federated learning model (“FIG. 4 illustrates an example architecture for perturbing gradients in federated learning,” paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) and outputting is performed by storing the perturbed data values and the perturbed group membership values in memory (“a final pre-processing of the time-series based ACR user viewing data 110 before providing an output to the deep-learning model functional block 114 for training, cross-validating, and testing,” paragraph 0023 lines 13-17).
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 the model of Nguyễn/Bernau to comprise the federated learning model of Qian. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely perturbation for federated learning (“FIG. 4 illustrates an example architecture for perturbing gradients in federated learning,” Qian paragraph 0039 lines 1-2). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated.
Nguyễn/Bernau does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the data values are performance values of the model.
Qian teaches a method wherein the data values are performance values of the model (“The model trainer 330 may perform the duty of federated learning locally, e.g., calculating the loss using user data 310,” Qian paragraph 0038 lines 20-22).
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 the data values of Nguyễn/Bernau to comprise the performance values of Qian. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely perturbation for performance values (“The model trainer 330 may perform the duty of federated learning locally, e.g., calculating the loss using user data 310,” Qian paragraph 0038 lines 20-22). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2023/0076024 A1 disclosing differential privacy for federated learning
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148