DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are independent.
3 The IDS submitted on 1/23/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “causing control of a controllable system using a computer-based reasoning model that was determined at least in part based on data cases in the digitally watermarked set of data;” the phrase "based on data cases in the digitally watermarked set of data" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “data cases” are “in the digitally watermarked set of data”. Accordingly, claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency of the rejected claim 1.
6. Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Moskowitz (US PG Pub. 2011/0010555).
As regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, Moskowitz discloses A method comprising:
receiving a request for digitally watermarking a set of data [para. 36; the engineer starting the process of watermarking];
determining an uncertainty measure of each feature of the set of data [para. 36-37];
determining a watermarking layout indicating where a digital watermark will be applied to the data [para. 40; the most significant bit preceding the start of a watermark];
generating a digitally watermarked set of data based at least in part based on encoding the digital watermark using the watermarking layout [para. 40; the most significant bit preceding the start of a watermark];
causing control of a controllable system using a computer-based reasoning model that was determined at least in part based on data cases in the digitally watermarked set of data [para. 42; destruction of the watermark causing destruction of the underlying signal];
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices [para. 36 and claim 154].
As regarding claims 2 and 18, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the uncertainty measure of each feature comprises one or more of determining a standard deviation [para. 27; determining randomly generated sequence of binary], mean absolute error, a probability density function, and a cumulative density function.
As regarding claims 3 and 19, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the uncertainty measure of each feature comprises receiving an input defining the uncertainty measure of the feature [para. 37; keystroke input].
As regarding claims 4 and 20, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the watermarking layout for the digital watermark comprises using a top significant digits within a range of uncertainty as an encoding location [para. 40; the most significant bit preceding the start of a watermark].
As regarding claim 5, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the watermarking layout for the digital watermark comprises using multiple significant digits in a range of uncertainty as an encoding location [para. 40; a sequence of N-bits representing sample information corresponding to the start of the watermark].
As regarding claim 6, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising combining a cryptographic signature with the digital watermark [para. 57 and 67].
As regarding claims 8 and 14, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the watermarking layout for the digital watermark comprises determining an amount of data that can be encoded into a feature based at least in part on a distribution of the feature [para. 40; a sequence of N-bits representing sample information corresponding to the start of the watermark].
As regarding claim 9, Moskowitz further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the watermarking layout for the digital watermark comprises wherein determining multiple bits describing an index in the digital watermark [para. 40; a sequence of N-bits representing sample information corresponding to the start of the watermark].
As regarding claim 12, Moskowitz further discloses The system of claim 11, wherein determining the aggregate measure of the set of data comprises determining an entropy of the set of data [para. 36-37].
As regarding claim 13, Moskowitz further discloses The system of claim 11, wherein determining the aggregate measure of the set of data comprises determining one or more of Gini coefficient, diversity index [para. 40; a sequence of N-bits representing sample information corresponding to the start of the watermark, e.g. the 3rd most significant bit] and area under a receiver operating characteristics (RoC) curve of the set of data.
As regarding claim 15, Moskowitz further discloses The system of claim 11, wherein determining the encoding location in the set of data for the digital watermark comprises wherein determining multiple bits describing an index in the digital watermark [para. 40; a sequence of N-bits representing sample information corresponding to the start of the watermark].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. 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.
12. Claims 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskowitz (US PG Pub. 2011/0010555) in view of Revital (US PG Pub. 2021/0067842).
As regarding claim 7, Moskowitz does not explicitly disclose testing the digitally watermarked data for fitness. However, Revital discloses it [para. 44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Moskowitz’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Revital, so as to inspect and analyze behaviors of the network devices.
As regarding claims 10 and 16, Moskowitz and Revital disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising testing the digitally watermarked data for fitness [Revital para. 44] based at least in part on decoding the digital watermark [Moskowitz para. 39; decoding watermark information].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433