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 1-30 are pending. Claims 1, 15, 16, 17, 29 and 30 are independent.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 7-11 and 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 11 and 25 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 11 and 25, 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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 14-17 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Tan (US PG Pub. 2018/0240011).
As regarding claims 1, 15 and 16, Tan discloses A computer-implemented method for developing a central machine learning model, the method performed by a central system communicatively coupled to a plurality of satellite systems, the method comprising:
receiving, at the central system, a plurality of synthetic data samples from respective satellite systems of the plurality of satellite systems, wherein each of the plurality of synthetic data samples is based on an actual data sample of the respective satellite system [para. 83; receiving parameters (described in para. 57-58) representing a local machine learning model from a plurality of local sites];
generating one or more processing rules based on the synthetic data samples [para. 53; generating a plurality of synthesized data-label pairs]; and
developing a central machine learning model based on the one or more processing rules [para. 83; generating updated central machine learning model based on the plurality of synthesized data-label pairs].
As regarding claim 2, Tan further discloses The method of claim 1, comprising: transmitting the central machine learning model to the plurality of satellite systems [para. 64];
receiving a plurality of updated data values from respective satellite systems of the plurality of satellite systems, wherein the plurality of updated data values were generated from training the central machine learning model using the actual data samples of the plurality of satellite systems [para. 64];
aggregating the plurality of updated data values to generate a central update [para. 64]; and
updating the central machine learning model based on the central update [para. 64].
As regarding claim 3, Tan further discloses The method of claim 2, wherein aggregating the plurality of updated data values comprises applying one or more federated averaging algorithms to the updated data values [para. 25 and 77].
As regarding claim 4, Tan further discloses The method of claim 2, comprising training the updated central machine learning model on a testing data set of the central system [para. 46 and 83].
As regarding claims 14 and 28, Tan further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of synthetic data samples do not correspond to any actual data samples that correspond to PII [para. 86; data transmitted to the central system are not actual data].
As regarding claims 17, 29 and 30, Tan discloses A computer-implemented method for training a central machine learning model locally at a satellite system that is communicatively coupled to a central system that is communicatively coupled to a plurality of satellite systems, the method comprising:
generating, at the satellite system, a plurality of synthetic data samples based on actual data samples of the satellite system [para. 83; generating, at a local site, parameters (described in para. 57-58) representing a local machine learning model];
transmitting the plurality of synthetic data samples to the central system; receiving, from the central system, a central machine learning model, wherein the central machine learning model is generated based at least in part on the plurality of synthetic data samples [para. 83; transmitting the parameters to a central site];
training the central machine learning model using actual data samples of the satellite system to generate a local update [para. 19, 25, 46 and 64]; and
transmitting the local update to the central system [para. 19, 25, 46 and 63-64].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 5, 6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US PG Pub. 2018/0240011) in view of Sassin (US PG Pub. 2019/0318272).
As regarding claims 5 and 19, Tan does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of satellite systems store actual data samples according to a uniform data schema. However, Sassin discloses it [para. 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Tan’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Sassin, for managing and maintaining data in the system.
As regarding claims 6 and 20, Tan and Sassin further disclose The method of claim 17, wherein the plurality of satellite systems store data samples according to different data schemas [Sassin 152-154].
12. Claims 12, 13, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US PG Pub. 2018/0240011) in view of Silveira (US PG Pub. 2022/0141192).
As regarding claims 12 and 26, Tan does not explicitly disclose that the central system and each of the plurality of satellite systems comprises an independent virtual private cloud (VPC). However, Silveira discloses it [para. 175].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Tan’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Silveira, to facilitate network security for the cloud system.
As regarding claims 13 and 27, Tan and Silveira further disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the central system is communicatively coupled to the plurality of satellite systems via secure point-to-point communication channels [Silveira para. 24 and 56].
13. Claims 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US PG Pub. 2018/0240011) in view of Abdelsalam (US Patent 10,698,756).
As regarding claim 18, Tan does not explicitly disclose encrypting the local update before transmitting the local update to the central system. However, Abdelsalam discloses it [col. 6 lines 29-31; encrypting data using SSL protocol before transmitting the data to the central server].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Tan’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Abdelsalam, in order to protect data from exposure to potentially malicious actors.
As regarding claim 21, Tan and Abdelsalam further disclose The method of claim 20, comprising:
receiving, at the satellite system, an encryption pipeline from the central system, wherein the encryption pipeline comprises encryption instructions [Abdelsalam col. 6 lines 29-31; exchanging SSL handshake instructions before transmitting data];
generating a plurality of encrypted data samples based on actual data samples of the satellite system in accordance with the encryption instructions [Abdelsalam col. 6 lines 29-31; encrypting data before transmission]; and
transmitting the plurality of encrypted data samples to the central system [col. 6 lines 29-31; transmitting encrypted data to the central server].
As regarding claim 22, Tan and Abdelsalam further disclose The method of claim 21, comprising storing, at the satellite system, a reverse mapping of the plurality of encrypted data samples [Abdelsalam col. 6 lines 29-31].
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
Prosecution Insights