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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 09/24/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 15, and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 5 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-19, and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed 09/24/2025, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 09/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate their judicial exceptions into a practical application. Particularly, Applicant argues that the claims enable multiple participants to compute feature effective values without reconstructing or leaking private data using secure MPC. Applicant points to [0003]-[0005] of the specification as reciting the alleged technical problem of data security being resolved in the invention.
Applicant also argues that the “specific, ordered process for secure computation” is analogous to Enfish claims improving database efficiency. Finally, Applicant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exceptions including secure MPC for covariance matrix shares. And the details amended into claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Examiner notes that paragraph [0003] states “a plurality of parties often jointly train business prediction models while ensuring the privacy and security of business data”. As Applicant states in the filed specification that a plurality of parties already often jointly train business prediction models while ensuring privacy and security of data, it would not appear to be an improvement of the claimed invention to provide security and privacy of the data. Instead [0004] and [0005] of the specification indicate that the improvement provided by the invention is the determination of feature effectiveness values to remove redundant features that complicate a model without providing any additional predictive power. Determining effective model features is an improvement to the abstract idea of business prediction models, not a technological improvement or improvement to a computer.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the claims’ analogousness to Enfish, Examiner notes that the claims and specification of Enfish taught an improvement to the functioning of a database itself. In contrast, the instant claims are not directed towards an improvement in data security or data privacy itself. Regarding the MPC that Applicant argues provides the secure computation, paragraph [0066] of Applicant’s specification recites “Secure multi-party computation (Secure Multi-party Computation, MPC) is an existing data privacy protection technology that can be used for multi-party participation, and specific implementations thereof include technologies such as homomorphic encryption, a garbled circuit, oblivious transfer, and secret sharing. The secure multi-party computation can be used to implement secure interaction computation for the joint data shares and the predictive value shares between the plurality of participant devices so that the plurality of participants can determine corresponding correlation data shares” (emphasis added). In other words, instead of providing a technical improvement to data privacy/security itself, the present claims are taking an existing data privacy protection technology and applying that technology to the claimed abstract idea for determining an effectiveness feature values in a joint model. Accordingly, instead of delineating a particular improvement to existing technology as in Enfish, the instant claims take an existing technology and apply it to an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about providing significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner notes that MPC as discussed above is merely an application of an existing technology per [0066] of the specification. Furthermore, the particular details added about the matrices into claim 1 may narrow the abstract idea by reciting a specific set of matrices to create and ways in which the matrices are to be manipulated in order to determine the effectiveness of feature values of a model. However, per MPEP 2106.04 I. “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation).” Therefore, while the additional limitations brought into claim 1 narrow the abstract idea, the claims reciting a narrower abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and does not make the claims eligible.
Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive regarding claim 1, as well as other independent claims 15 and 18. The respective dependent claims are ineligible for the reasons discussed in the rejections below. Claims 1-4, 6-19, and 21-22 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 09/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 12-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly, Examiner notes that Applicant has incorporated the features of previous claim 5, which was indicated as novel/non-obvious in the 07/02/2025 Office Action, into independent claims 1, 15, and 18. Accordingly, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments that the references cited to teach claims 1-4 and 12-19 do not teach the amended limitations of the independent claims. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 12-19 have been withdrawn. Regarding the newly introduced dependent claims 21 and 22, these claims are novel/non-obvious by virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claim 18.
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 1-4, 6-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite multiple participants sharing data to improve a business prediction model that is used by the participants to make predictions about the future behavior of their customers.
As an initial matter, claims 1-4 and 6-14 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 15-17 fall into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claims 18-19 and 21-22 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Claim 1 recites the concept of multiple participants sharing data to improve a business prediction model that is used by the participants to make predictions about the future behavior of their customers which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method, comprising: obtaining, by a first participant of a plurality of participants, a joint data share, a predictive value share and a model parameter share, wherein: the joint data share is obtained based on joint data, which is generated from business data of the plurality of participants by hypothetical splicing and comprises feature values of a plurality of objects corresponding to a plurality of feature terms; the predictive value share is obtained based on predictive values for the plurality of objects, which are determined by a business prediction model based on the joint data; and the model parameter share is obtained based on model parameters, corresponding to the plurality of feature terms respectively, of the business prediction model; determining, by the first participant with the other participants and based on the joint data shares and the predictive value shares, a correlation data share, wherein the correlation data share comprises correlation data between the plurality of feature terms, and wherein the correlation data comprises covariance matrix data, and the correlation data share comprises covariance matrix share, and determining the correlation data share comprises: determining, based on the joint data shares, the predictive values, and a function relation in the business prediction model, a plurality of intermediate matrix shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; obtaining, based on the plurality of intermediate matrix shares, a plurality of intermediate matrix inverse shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; and obtaining, based on the plurality of intermediate matrix inverse shares, a plurality of covariance matrix shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; and determining, by the first participant interacting with the other participants and based on the model parameter shares and the correlation data shares, an effective value of the feature term using a significance test method, wherein the effective value indicates an effectiveness of the feature term in improving the business prediction model all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the method being “computer-implemented” and performing secure multi-party computation. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the method being “computer-implemented” and performing secure multi-party computation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of claim 3 while introducing the additional element of a device of the first participant. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a device of the first participant is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 3 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6-10 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of claim 10 while introducing the additional element of devices of participants other than the first participant. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of devices of participants other than the first participant is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 10 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-14 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the concept of multiple participants sharing data to improve a business prediction model that is used by the participants to make predictions about the future behavior of their customers which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Operations comprising: obtaining, by a first participant of a plurality of participants, a joint data share, a predictive value share and a model parameter share, wherein: the joint data share is obtained based on joint data, which is generated from business data of the plurality of participants by hypothetical splicing and comprises feature values of a plurality of objects corresponding to a plurality of feature terms; the predictive value share is obtained based on predictive values for the plurality of objects, which are determined by a business prediction model based on the joint data; and the model parameter share is obtained based on model parameters, corresponding to the plurality of feature terms respectively, of the business prediction model; determining, by the first participant with the other participants and based on the joint data shares and the predictive value shares, a correlation data share, wherein the correlation data share comprises correlation data between the plurality of feature terms, and wherein the correlation data comprises covariance matrix data, and the correlation data share comprises covariance matrix share, and determining the correlation data share comprises: determining, based on the joint data shares, the predictive values, and a function relation in the business prediction model, a plurality of intermediate matrix shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; obtaining, based on the plurality of intermediate matrix shares, a plurality of intermediate matrix inverse shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; and obtaining, based on the plurality of intermediate matrix inverse shares, a plurality of covariance matrix shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; and determining, by the first participant interacting with the other participants and based on the model parameter shares and the correlation data shares, an effective value of the feature term using a significance test method, wherein the effective value indicates an effectiveness of the feature term in improving the business prediction model all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory, computer readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system, a computer system, and performing secure multi-party computation. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory, computer readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system, a computer system, and performing secure multi-party computation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-17 further limit the abstract idea of claim 15 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 15 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites the concept of multiple participants sharing data to improve a business prediction model that is used by the participants to make predictions about the future behavior of their customers which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Perform one or more operations comprising: obtaining, by a first participant of a plurality of participants, a joint data share, a predictive value share and a model parameter share, wherein: the joint data share is obtained based on joint data, which is generated from business data of the plurality of participants by hypothetical splicing and comprises feature values of a plurality of objects corresponding to a plurality of feature terms; the predictive value share is obtained based on predictive values for the plurality of objects, which are determined by a business prediction model based on the joint data; and the model parameter share is obtained based on model parameters, corresponding to the plurality of feature terms respectively, of the business prediction model; determining, by the first participant with the other participants and based on the joint data shares and the predictive value shares, a correlation data share, wherein the correlation data share comprises correlation data between the plurality of feature terms, and wherein the correlation data comprises covariance matrix data, and the correlation data share comprises covariance matrix share, and determining the correlation data share comprises: determining, based on the joint data shares, the predictive values, and a function relation in the business prediction model, a plurality of intermediate matrix shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; obtaining, based on the plurality of intermediate matrix shares, a plurality of intermediate matrix inverse shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; and obtaining, based on the plurality of intermediate matrix inverse shares, a plurality of covariance matrix shares corresponding to the plurality of participants; and determining, by the first participant interacting with the other participants and based on the model parameter shares and the correlation data shares, an effective value of the feature term using a significance test method, wherein the effective value indicates an effectiveness of the feature term in improving the business prediction model all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer-implemented system, one or more computers, one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions, and performing secure multi-party computation. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer-implemented system, one or more computers, one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions, and performing secure multi-party computation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 further limits the abstract idea of claim 18 while introducing the additional element of a device of the first participant. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a device of the first participant is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 18 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 21-22 further limit the abstract idea of claim 18 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 18 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious
Claims 1-4, 6-19, and 21-22 are distinguished over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, Ceulemans et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,615,288; hereafter known as Ceulemans) in view of Achin et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0060738, hereafter known as Achin) and Jiang (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0267326, hereafter known as Jiang) teaches the majority of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in the 07/02/2025 Non-Final Rejection. Regarding the amended limitations into claim 1, the amended limitations are features incorporated from the now-canceled claim 5. As discussed on page 24 of the 07/02/2025 Non-Final Rejection, Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,803,184; hereafter known as Zhou) and Zhu et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0269936, hereafter known as Zhu) teach the limitations amended into claim 1 individually. However, also as discussed on page 24 of the 07/02/2025 Non-Final Rejection, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ceulemans, Achin, Jiang, Zhou, and Zhu in such a manner as to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is non-obvious over the prior art of record. Independent claims 15 and 18 have been amended similarly to claim 1 and are non-obvious for similar reasoning. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are all non-obvious by virtue of their dependence on their respective non-obvious independent claims.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schiatti et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0067339) teaches using noise values to mask data obtained from participants in federated learning to preserve data privacy
Mohassel et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0092216) teaches preserving privacy when performing three-party computation to train and evaluate models
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628