DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 11/17/2023.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 4, and 7 are independent Claims.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 2022-195982 filed in JAPAN on 12/07/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed (11/17/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 11/17/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Claim Objection
6. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is not formatted correctly. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites a “federated learning system”. However, as currently recited the “system” comprises only computer software components. Thus, the claim is software per se and does not fall within any of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter in section 101.
Accordingly, claim 1 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1, claims 2 and 3 fall outside the scope of § 101.
Regarding independent claim 4, the claim recites a “federated learning system”. However, as currently recited the “system” comprises only computer software components. Thus, the claim is software per se and does not fall within any of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter in section 101.
Accordingly, claim 4 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 4, claims 5 and 6 fall outside the scope of § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by UPADHYAY et al. (US 20220391779).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
UPADHYAY teaches a federated learning system using a smart-contract-based blockchain technology (Abstract, Fig.1, and [0021-0024]), the system comprising:
a first information processing apparatus including an initial federated learning model (Abstract, Fig.1, and [0024-0025] and [0027-0031]); and
a second information processing apparatus that trains an initial federated learning model delivered from the first information processing apparatus, wherein the first information processing apparatus includes an initial federated learning model sharing contract that is a smart contract used to share the initial federated learning model with the second information processing apparatus, the smart contract including reward information on a reward as a token that a user of the first information processing apparatus receives from a user of the second information processing apparatus for the sharing of the initial federated learning model (Abstract, [0012-0015], [0021-0023], [0028-0033], and [0043]).
As to Claim 2:
UPADHYAY teaches the initial federated learning model sharing contract includes a model usage fee input unit that a user of the first information processing apparatus uses to input the reward information ([0007], [0012-0014], and [0021-0024]).
As to Claim 3:
UPADHYAY teaches the first information processing apparatus includes a task explanatory note publication unit that makes a task explanatory note open to the second information processing apparatus, the task explanatory note including a model usage fee, a reward for federated learning, and a task content of federated learning, and the second information processing apparatus includes a task participation determining unit to which a user inputs the user's participation in federated learning ([0007-0012], [0021-0025], and [0027-0031]).
As to Claim 4:
UPADHYAY teaches a federated learning system using a smart-contract-based blockchain technology (Abstract, Fig.1, and [0021-0024]), the system comprising an initial federated learning model (Abstract, Fig.1, and [0024-0025] and [0027-0031]) sharing contract that is a smart contract used to cause a second information processing apparatus that trains a model to share an initial federated learning model included in a first information processing apparatus that requests federated learning, the smart contract including reward information on a reward as a token that a user of the first information processing apparatus receives from a user of the second information processing apparatus for the sharing of the initial federated learning model (Abstract, [0012-0015], [0021-0023], [0028-0033], and [0043]).
As to Claim 5:
UPADHYAY teaches the initial federated learning model sharing contract includes a model usage fee input unit that a user of the first information processing apparatus uses to input the reward information ([0007], [0012-0014], and [0021-0024]).
As to Claim 6:
UPADHYAY teaches the first information processing apparatus includes a task explanatory note publication unit that makes a task explanatory note open to the second information processing apparatus, the task explanatory note including a model usage fee, a reward for federated learning, and a task content of federated learning, and the second information processing apparatus includes a task participation determining unit to which a user inputs the user's participation in federated learning ([0007-0012], [0021-0025], and [0027-0031]).
As to Claim 7:
UPADHYAY teaches a federated learning method using a smart-contract-based blockchain technology (Abstract, Fig.1, and [0021-0024]), the method comprising:
a first information processing apparatuses' causing a second information processing apparatus to share an initial federated learning model, using an initial federated learning model sharing contract that is a smart contract used to allow the first information processing apparatus to cause the second information processor that trains a model to share the initial federated learning model (Abstract, Fig.1, [0012-0015], [0024-0025], [0027-0033], and [0043]); and
the first information processing apparatuses' acquiring a reward as a token when the second information processing apparatus shares the initial federated learning model (Abstract, [0012-0015], [0021-0023], [0028-0033], and [0043]).
As to Claim 8:
UPADHYAY teaches a user's inputting the reward to the initial federated learning model sharing contract, the user being a user of the first information processing apparatus.
As to Claim 9:
UPADHYAY teaches a user's creating a task explanatory note including a model usage fee, a reward for federated learning, and a task content of federated learning, the user being a user of the first information processing apparatus; a user's making the task explanatory note open to public, the user being a user of the first information processing apparatus; and a user's determining whether or not to participate in federated learning, based on a descriptive content of the task explanatory note, the user being a user of the second information processing apparatus ([0007-0012], [0021-0025], and [0027-0031]).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights