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
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first attests that the originally filed disclosure supports the claim limitation “simulating decision-making behavior by the inference consumer using a model for the inference consumer and an unpoisoned version of the poisoned inference”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses Applicant’s arguments, however these arguments are now moot as Applicant has substantially amended the claims at issue and the Examiner defers to the rejection below in response to the newly amended claims.
Applicant then requests an interview contingent upon maintaining a pending 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection with the brief description of arguments to be presented stating “Should the Office decide to maintain the 112(a0 [sic] rejection in view of the amended claims in the response filed 12-12-2025, Applicant respectfully requests an Interview with both signing Examiner prior to issuance of a new Office Action”. The Examiner respectfully submits that the request for interview will be denied as the issues presented have been rendered moot by the substantial amendments made to the claims, and it does not appear, as of the current record, that granting such an interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered. The previous rejection of claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Since applicant does not give any further explanation as to how the previously cited art differentiates from the claimed invention other than repeating the amendments made to the claim and alleging that the Aggarwal reference is silent in reciting the claim language, the examiner defers to the rejection below as a response to this argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/12/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
An amendment to paragraphs [00101], [00110-00111], and [00116] of the original specification was received on 12/12/2025. The amendments are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 16:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 recite “the model for the inference consumer being configured to simulate and mimic decision-making behaviors of the inference consumer”. The limitation in question does not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. There is no disclosure regarding how the inventor intended to have “the model for the inference consumer being configured to simulate and mimic decision-making behaviors of the inference consumer”. The originally filed disclosure is not commensurate with having a model being configured to simulate and mimic decision-making behaviors of the inference consumer, as the originally filed disclosure refers to obtaining unpoisoned versions of poisoned inferences and initializing digital twins to reflect a point in time prior to consumption of poisoned inferences. There is no disclosure of how these functions/steps are performed other than making the conclusory statement that the requisite steps may be performed and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how the inventor intended to achieve the claimed function. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
In MPEP 2161.01, "computer-implemented functional claim language must still be evaluated for sufficient disclosure under the written description". And MPEP 2161.01(I) "generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed." For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
As in MPEP 2161.01 (I), "The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention." It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
AS in MPEP 2161.01 “For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention' s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").”
“The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733.”
The dependent claims fall together accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aggarwal et. al. (US Publication No. US 2025/0037022 A1) hereinafter Aggarwal.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 16:
Claim 10. Aggarwal discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing use of inferences in a distributed environment, the operations comprising (Aggarwal [0185-0199] may be implemented on a processor and non-transitory medium): obtaining, from a challenger, a challenge comprising an allegation that a first inference provided to an inference consumer caused the inference consumer to make an undesirable decision (Aggarwal Figure 8 and [0163-0164] “Steps 9 and 10 are an example of providing the first inference output to the analytics consumer, obtaining feedback information based on the first inference output from the analytics consumer and determining that the first machine learning model has been attacked further based on the feedback information. In step 11, AnLF initiates detection of data poisoning attack in case of negative feedback.”); based on the challenge: simulating decision-making behavior by the inference consumer using a model for the inference consumer and a second inference to identify an impact of the first inference on the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 5 and 6a obtains a poisoned and previous model version to obtain analytics in step 7), the model for the inference consumer being configured to simulate and mimic decision-making behaviors of the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 7 and [0150-0162] Model X is a trained machine learning model and Model Y is a second machine learning model being trained prior to Model X and Model Y represents the inference consumer whose behavior is simulated via obtaining its output and then the outputs of Model X and Model Y are analyzed to calculate the drift between the analytics inference output obtained from both the ML models), the second inference being fed into the model for the inference consumer to obtain simulated inference consumer behavior from the model for the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 7 and [0150-0162] Model X is a trained machine learning model and Model Y is a second machine learning model being trained prior to Model X and Model Y represents the inference consumer whose behavior is simulated and then the outputs of Model X and Model Y are analyzed to calculate the drift between the analytics inference output obtained from both the ML models), the impact of the first inference on the inference consumer being based on the simulated inference consumer behavior obtained from the model for the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 7 and [0150-0162] concept drift between Model X and Y is calculated), and the second inference being based on the first inference (Aggarwal Figure 8, [0158]), and generating, using the identified impact of the first inference, an auditable response to the challenge (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 8-9 send analytics and request for feedback [0159-0160]); and managing the challenge using the auditable response (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 9-15 process based on feedback [0161-0169]).
Claims 1 and 16 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales. Aggarwal further discloses a method (Aggarwal Figure 8, [0185]), and a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Aggarwal [0185-0199]).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 17:
Claim 11. Aggarwal further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10 (Aggarwal [0185-0199] may be implemented on a processor and non-transitory medium), wherein the auditable response comprises information that can be used by the challenger to independently verify the impact of the first inference on the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 10 analytics consumer is able to provide the requested feedback).
Claims 2 and 17 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 18:
Claim 12. Aggarwal further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11 (Aggarwal [0185-0199] may be implemented on a processor and non-transitory medium), wherein the auditable response comprises: information regarding an architecture of a digital twin usable by the challenger to obtain an instance of the digital twin, the model being the digital twin (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 2 request the model and request the data distribution/sample data used to train the model); and information regarding the second inference usable by the challenger to replicate operation of the digital twin upon which the impact of the first inference on the inference consumer was identified (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 6a send previous model version that wasn’t poisoned).
Claims 3 and 18 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 19:
Claim 13. Aggarwal further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10 (Aggarwal [0185-0199] may be implemented on a processor and non-transitory medium), wherein simulating the decision-making behavior comprises: initializing the digital twin to reflect a point in time prior to consumption of the first inference by the inference consumer to obtain an initialized digital twin (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 0a different model versions stored, step 4a/4b, step 5/6a send poisoned and previous unpoisoned model versions, [0157-0158]); feeding the second inference to the initialized digital twin to obtain simulated operation of the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 7, [0157-0160]); and identifying the impact of the first inference on the inference consumer based on the simulated operation of the inference consumer (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 8 calculating the drift between the output received form the poisoned ml model and unpoisoned ml model, [0159-0160]).
Claims 4 and 19 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 20:
Claim 14. Aggarwal further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10 (Aggarwal [0185-0199] may be implemented on a processor and non-transitory medium), wherein managing the challenge comprises: providing a copy of the auditable response to the challenger (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 8-9 send analytics and request for feedback [0159-0160]).
Claims 5 and 20 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15:
Claim 15. Aggarwal further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14 (Aggarwal [0185-0199] may be implemented on a processor and non-transitory medium), wherein managing the challenge further comprises: indicating, to the challenger, an agreement or a disagreement with the allegation that the first inference provided to the inference consumer caused the inference consumer to make the undesirable decision (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 8 drift is calculated; [0140] “The method may detect if there is an attack or a genuine data distribution change being performed using the concept drift in inferences generated from the AI/ML models and/or the feedback mechanism from the analytics consumer which requested the data”).
Claim 6 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 7:
Aggarwal further discloses the method of claim 1 (Aggarwal Figure 8, [0185]), wherein the inference consumer consumes inferences generated via an inference model (Aggarwal Figure 8 steps 9-10, [0163] “Steps 9 and 10 are an example of providing the first inference output to the analytics consumer, obtaining feedback information based on the first inference output from the analytics consumer and determining that the first machine learning model has been attacked further based on the feedback information”), the inference model being based at least in part on training data, and the first inference being generated by a first version of the inference model that was trained at least in part using first training data (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 12 requests historical data samples/data distribution that may have been poisoned [0165]).
Regarding Claim 8:
Aggarwal further discloses the method of claim 7 (Aggarwal Figure 8, [0185]), wherein the second inference is obtained using a second version of the inference model that was not trained using the first training data (Aggarwal Figure 8 step 0a different model versions stored, step 4a/4b, step 5/6a send poisoned and previous unpoisoned model versions, [0151-0158] requests a ML model along with distribution/sample data from each NF which will be used to train the ML model for the given analytics ID).
Regarding Claim 9:
Aggarwal further discloses the method of claim 1 (Aggarwal Figure 8, [0185]), wherein the first inference is generated by a first entity (Aggarwal Figure 8 ADRF is a first entity that is a suitable data repository, [0149]), the inference consumer being a second entity (Aggarwal Figure 8 analytics consumer is another entity, [0152]), and the challenger being a third entity (Aggarwal Figure 8 NWDAF is another ml model inference entity, [0146]), and the first entity, the second entity, and the third entity being different entities from one another (Aggarwal Figure 8, [0146-0152]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the submitted PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MIGUEL A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1241. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached on 5712727624. 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.
/M.A.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496