NON-FINAL REJECTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on September 30,2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 were canceled. Claims 5-10 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The claim recites “generating a correct comparison results according a plurality of…” instead of “according to a plurality of…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 5-10 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 5 recites an abstract idea of determining whether to provide a second private key. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to determining whether to provide a second private key. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
5. (Original) A method for machine learning model verification and transaction, comprising performing the following steps according to a first smart contract generated by a first private key, a second private key, test data ciphertext, label ciphertext, model ciphertext and accuracy threshold ciphertext that are generated according to a parameter set of full homomorphic encryption: secret sharing the first private key and the second private key to a plurality of blockchain nodes; selecting a plurality of verification devices, wherein the plurality of verification devices are configured to perform a verification, wherein the verification comprises:
inferring the test data ciphertext according to the model ciphertext to generate a plurality of inference results;
performing a plurality of first full homomorphic encryption comparisons of the plurality of inference results with the label ciphertext to generate a plurality of accuracies; and
performing a plurality of second full homomorphic encryption comparisons of the plurality of accuracies with the accuracy threshold ciphertext to generate a plurality of first comparison results;
generating a correct comparison result according a plurality of third full homomorphic encryption comparisons between the plurality of first comparison results; decrypting the correct comparison result by the first and second private keys that are secret shared to generate a correct comparison result plaintext; and determining whether to provide the second private key to a first electronic device according to the correct comparison result plaintext, wherein the first electronic device decrypts the model ciphertext according to the first and second private keys.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the machine learning model, blockchain nodes, electronic device, and verification device is merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of determining whether to provide a second private key. Viewed as a whole, the use of machine learning model, blockchain nodes, electronic device, and verification device as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the machine learning model, blockchain nodes, electronic device, and verification device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining whether to provide a second private key. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining whether to provide a second private key. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as confiscating the amount of cryptocurrency of a fake verification device that corresponds to the fake result and equally distributing, according to the first smart contract, a second amount of cryptocurrency to a cryptocurrency account.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5 and 6 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 5 recites “determining whether to provide the second private key to a first electronic device according to the correct comparison result plaintext;” however, it is unclear how this step is being implemented. Particularly, the claim recites “generating a correct comparison result according a plurality of third homomorphic encryption comparisons between the plurality of first comparison results…” For example, the claim does not describe the outcome of those results or conditions in order to determine whether to provide the second private key.
How does the method determine according to the comparison result?
Claim 6 recites “confiscating the amount of cryptocurrency of a fake verification device that corresponds to the fake result;” however, it is unclear how this step is being implemented.
The term “fake” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fake” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “model” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “9” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning Model for Decentralized VANETs Using Fully Homomorphic Encryption and Blockchain” to Chen et al. (“Chen”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,164,107 to Craib et al. (“Craib”).
As per claim 5, Chen discloses secret sharing the first private key and the second private key to a plurality of blockchain nodes (P. 11636 -Step 3. Encrypt and broadcast message… uses its own private key)
inferring the test data ciphertext according to the model ciphertext to generate a plurality of inference results; performing a plurality of first full homomorphic encryption comparisons of the plurality of inference results with the label ciphertext to generate a plurality of accuracies; (P. 11637 – see DVANET Data Encryption Using the FHE Algorithm: TCI blockchain is used as an input to the local DPDL models on EC nodes…We use the Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) algorithm…All cipher-text elements are collected to obtain the cipher-text…Based on the encryption function, we can obtain encrypted TCI block data; see Privacy-Preserving Model Prediction: Convolution layer. Based on FHE-based data encryption, block data in the TCI blockchain are encrypted on the corresponding EC nodes. Each EC node uses the encrypted TCI blocks as the input of the current local DPDP model for model training and prediction);
performing a plurality of second full homomorphic encryption comparisons of the plurality of accuracies with the accuracy threshold ciphertext to generate a plurality of first comparison results; generating a correct comparison result according a plurality of third full homomorphic encryption comparisons between the plurality of first comparison results (Fig. 8, p. 11641 – accuracy test; p. 11638 – algorithm shows iteration which suggest that the homomorphic operation could be performed more than once; hence, the reference teaches second and third FHE);
decrypting the correct comparison result by the first and second private keys that are secret shared to generate a correct comparison result plaintext; and determining whether to provide the second private key to a first electronic device according to the correct comparison result plaintext, wherein the first electronic device decrypts the model ciphertext according to the first and second private keys (p. 11638 – users use their own key to decrypt results to obtain plaintext).
Chen does not expressly disclose selecting a plurality of verification devices, wherein the plurality of verification devices are configured to perform a verification.
Craib discloses selecting a plurality of verification devices, wherein the plurality of verification devices are configured to perform a verification (col. 7, ll.40-44 – the node is a computing device that is connected to the blockchain network using a client that performs tasks such as validation (or confirmation, verification);
performing a plurality of first full homomorphic encryption comparisons of the plurality of inference results with the label ciphertext to generate a plurality of accuracies performing a full homomorphic encryption comparisons of the plurality of accuracies with the accuracy threshold ciphertext to generate a plurality of first comparison results; generating a correct comparison result according a full homomorphic encryption comparisons between the plurality of first comparison results (col. 1, l. 61- col. 2, l. 15 - An accuracy of each received estimate is calculated, via a processor, by comparing the received estimates to second data. For a first ranked DSCN from the plurality of ranked DSCNs, the predefined resource is decremented and a token augmentation is assigned to the first ranked DSCN if the accuracy of the estimate associated with the first ranked DSCN exceeds a predefined threshold (e.g., if log loss<−ln(0.5)) …The predefined resource can be defined by a smart contract; col. 16, ll.27-36 – fully homomorphic encryption)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Craib into Chen. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Craib as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11074495 to Zadeh et al. (“Zadeh”) and U.S. Patent No. 11,799,637 to Fletcher (“Fletcher”).
As per claim 6, Chen discloses wherein generating the correct comparison result comprises: classifying the plurality of first comparison results into sets, wherein a third full homomorphic encryption comparison result of a same set of the plurality of first comparison results indicates being equal to each other; generating the correct comparison result according a first comparison result set that has a greatest number of comparison results among the sets (p. 11638 – classification with softmax);
Chen does not expressly disclose determining one of the plurality of first comparison results that is not in the first comparison result set as a fake result ad confiscating the amount of cryptocurrency of a fake verification device that corresponds to the fake result.
Craib discloses wherein each of the plurality of verification devices is configured to provide a first amount of cryptocurrency according to a second smart contract (see claim 1 above; col. 10, ll. 29-36).
Zadeth discloses determining based on first comparison results that is not in the first comparison result set as a fake result (abstract; col. 14, ll. 27-48 - using algorithms and application for fraud detection or verification/validation, e.g., for banking or cryptocurrency)
Fletcher discloses; and confiscating the amount of cryptocurrency of a fake verification device that corresponds to the fake result (claim 1-in response to reaching a consensus that the malicious activity has occurred…deploying a sidechain to determine whether to confiscate the portion of digital assets of the malicious party according to the first set of instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Craib, Zadeth, and Fletcher into Chen. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, Chen in combination with Craib, Zadeth and Fletcher disclose equally distributing, according to the first smart contract, a second amount of cryptocurrency to a cryptocurrency account of each in the first comparison result set. Particularly, Craib teaches predefined resource can be defined by a smart contract and decrementing the predefined resource can include modifying or replacing the smart contract (abstract; col. 14, ll. 17-23). The Examiner notes that the predefined agreement could include equally distributing a second amount.
As per claim 8, Chen in combination with Craib, Zadeth and Fletcher disclose according to the first smart contract, comparing the greatest number and a number threshold; and when the greatest number is smaller than the number threshold, selecting a plurality of new verification devices to perform the verification again (see at least Craib at col. 27, ll. 8-41).
As per claim 9, Chen in combination with Craib, Zadeth and Fletcher disclose receiving a second amount of cryptocurrency from a cryptocurrency account of a model buyer according to the correct comparison result plaintext having a first value, determining the model ciphertext passing the verification and transferring the second amount of cryptocurrency to a cryptocurrency account of a model provider (Carib at col. 26, ll. 25-42 –fetching from memory model submission identifiers and associated usernames…payment information including crypto-token amount…transaction information including crypto-token deposit information, withdrawal information, value information and see claim 1 rejection above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in combination with Craib, Zadeth and Fletcher as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of KR 2023080665A to Choi et al. (“Choi”).
As per claim 10, Chen in combination with Craib, Zadeth, and Fletcher disclose according to the correct comparison result plaintext having a second value, determining the model ciphertext not passing the verification and transferring the second amount of cryptocurrency to the cryptocurrency account of the model buyer, and (see claim 5 and 6 above).
Chen in combination with Carib, Zadeth, and Fletcher do not expressly disclose transferring the first amount of cryptocurrency that is confiscated to the cryptocurrency account of the model provider.
Choi discloses (Choi - supporting confiscation and storage of virtual assets related to investigation target case to transfer virtual asset specified as proceeds of criminal case subject to investigation to wallet of investigative agency, and to store transferred confiscated goods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Craib, Zadeth, Fletcher, and Choi into Chen. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697