DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to 35 USC 112b, filed 11/10/2025 on pages 9-10 of the remarks, the applicant argues that the law requires that the claims, when read in light of the specification, inform those skilled in the art with reasonable certainty as to the scope of the invention.
The examiner does not concede. It is unclear what component of the entity is performing the functional language, more specifically what component of the entity is performing the combination. Thus, it is unclear whether the function after an entity requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in an unknown certain manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 21733.05(g).
The claims do not positively recite a component of an entity encrypting information nor hashing information. Thus, it is unclear whether the function after an entity requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in an unknown certain manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 21733.05(g).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-20 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.
Re. claims 1, 9 and 16; the claims recite “obtain a first combined sender hash from a first decrypted combined sender hash upon executing the one or more machine learning algorithms in accordance with the one or more machine learning models, the first combined sender hash indicating a first combination of a first hash corresponding to first shareable data and a second hash corresponding to an encrypted version of the first shareable data at a sender”. The claims renders indefinite as it is unclear what component of the apparatus is combing the information of the first combined sender hash and unclear if the first combined sender hash was encrypted before decrypted. The claim does not positively recite a component of an entity encrypting information nor hashing information.
Re. claims 1, 9 and 16; the claims recite “obtain a first combined receiver hash from a first decrypted shareable data upon executing the one or more machine learning algorithms in accordance with the one or more machine learning models, the first combined receiver hash indicating a second combination of a third hash corresponding to the first shareable data and a fourth hash corresponding to the encrypted version of the first shareable data at a receiver”. The claims renders indefinite as it is unclear what component of the apparatus is combing the information of the first combined receiver hash and unclear if the first combined receiver hash was encrypted before decrypted. The claim does not positively recite a component of an entity encrypting information nor hashing information.
Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 fall together accordingly as they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen (US 20230370274) discloses the assessment service may combine the assessment results, the first hash value of the validation dataset and the second hash value of the AI model so that the combined results may be signed and provided to a verification service.
Takumi (US 20190286833) discloses the combination of the file path name of the start process and the hash value generated at step S102 matches any one of combinations of file path name and hash value registered in the executable whitelist (matched at step S104), the start process control unit 101 determines to allow starting the start process and proceeds to step S110 to notify the start processing unit 21 of the determination result to allow starting.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-3912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM; Friday: Variable EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/KEVIN AYALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496