SELF-SUPERVISED DATA OBFUSCATION IN FOUNDATION MODELS

§101 §102 §DOUBLEPATENT

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 . Priority Applicant claims the benefit a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 18/303,454, filed 19 April 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application 18/170,476, filed 16 February 2023, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 63/311,014, filed 16 February 2022, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 63/420,287, filed 28 October 2022, which are acknowledged. Drawings The drawings were received on 12/07/2023. These drawings are acceptable. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 20 of in light of US Patent No. 11886955. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the patent anticipate the boarder limitation in the instant application. See table below. US Patent No. 11886955, hereinafter ‘RefDoc’ teaches the limitations as highlighted in the table and analysis below: U.S. Application No. 18532767 Examiner notes: U.S. Patent No. 11886955 (Reference Patent, hereinafter ‘RefDoc’) Claim 1 A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising: obtaining, by a computer system, a training dataset; obtaining, with the computer system, one or more machine learning models, the one or more machine learning models configured to generate an intermediate output in response to a given input, the intermediate output comprising fewer dimensions than comprise the input, and to generate as output a reconstruction of the given input based intermediate output, the reconstruction comprising more dimensions than comprise the intermediate output, the one or more machine learning models are trained based on optimization of reconstruction loss; adding, with the computer system, one or more stochastic noise layers to the one or more machine learning models, wherein the one or more stochastic noise layers are additional layers among layers of the one or more machine learning models, and wherein each of the stochastic noise layers injects noise by sampling from one or more parametric noise distributions, at least some of the parametric noise distributions being independent, and adding the sampled parametric noise to the intermediate output of the one or more machine learning models; adjusting, with the computer system, parameters of the parametric noise distributions according to an objective function that is differentiable, wherein the objective function comprises a measure of adversarial loss; and storing, with the computer system, the stochastic noise layers in memory. Examiner notes that the RefDoc limitations anticipates the limitations in the instant case as the instant claim limitations are boarder in scope from the RefDoc, as noted in the comparison. The claims in the instant case are anticipated by the narrower claim limitations in the RefDoc. Claim 1 A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising: obtaining, by a computer system, a training dataset; training, with the computer system, one or more machine learning models as an autoencoder to generate as output a reconstruction of a record in the training dataset based on an input of the record in the training dataset, wherein the autoencoder comprises at least one deterministic layer and wherein training is based on optimization of a value indicative of reconstruction loss and wherein the record is multi-dimensional; adding, with the computer system, one or more stochastic noise layers to the trained one or more machine learning models of the autoencoder, wherein the one or more stochastic noise layers are additional layers among the layers of the trained one or more machine learning models of the autoencoder, wherein each of the stochastic noise layers inject noise by, for each of at least a plurality of dimensions of the stochastic noise layer, sampling from a parametric noise distribution for respective dimensions, and adding for each stochastic noise layer, noise to an encoded representation of a record at the respective stochastic noise layer, and wherein the parametric noise distributions for each of the at least the plurality of dimensions are independent; adjusting, with the computer system, parameters of the parametric noise distributions for the dimensions of the one or more stochastic noise layers according to an objective function that is differentiable, wherein the objective function comprises a measure of adversarial loss; storing, with the computer system, the one or more machine learning models of the autoencoder with the stochastic noise layers in memory; obtaining, by the computer system, one or more records from a second dataset; generating, with the stored one or more machine learning models of the autoencoder with the stochastic noise layers, one or more obfuscated records for the one or more records from the second dataset; and transmitting, by the computer system, the one or more obfuscated records by an untrusted network. Claim 2 A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising: obtaining, by a computer system, access to a machine learning model, at least part of the machine learning model configured to generate embeddings based on input data; obtaining, by the computer system, an input data set; determining, by the computer system, embeddings for the input data set based on the machine learning model; obtaining, by the computer system, an obfuscation transform, the obfuscation transform configured to apply noise sampled from one or more parametric noise distributions to at least a plurality of dimensions of the embeddings generated by the machine learning model to generating noisy embeddings; training, by the computer system, the one or more parametric noise distributions by self-supervision based on an objective function that is differentiable, the objective function comprising a measure of mutual information and a measure of data loss; and storing, with the computer system, the obfuscation transform and the trained one or more parametric noise distributions for the machine learning model in memory. Examiner notes that the RefDoc limitations anticipates the limitations of the current claim for the same reasons noted above. Claim 2 A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising: obtaining, by a computer system, a access to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is a trained machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is a foundation model, and wherein the machine learning model generates embeddings based on input records; obtaining, by the computer system, a training data set; determining, by the computer system, an obfuscation transform based on the machine learning model and the training data set by self-supervision, wherein determining the obfuscation transform comprises: obtaining training embeddings based on the training set from the machine learning model; generating the obfuscation transform based on dimensionality of the training embeddings, wherein the obfuscation transform injects noise by, for each of at least a plurality of dimensions of the training embedding, sampling from a parametric noise distribution and applying the sampled parametric noise to a given embedding; training the obfuscation transform by adjusting parameters of the parametric noise distribution according to an objective function that is differentiable, wherein the object function comprises a measure of mutual information and a measure of data loss; and storing, with the computer system, the trained obfuscation transform in memory. Claim 3: The medium of claim 2, wherein the machine learning model is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, and wherein the obfuscation transform is further configured to generate noisy embeddings that are correctly processed by the machine learning model despite the obfuscation. Examiner notes that the RefDoc limitations anticipates the limitations of the current claim for the same reasons noted above. Claim 3: The medium of claim 2, wherein the machine learning model is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model trained with self-supervision, and the trained obfuscation transform is configured to transform records into obfuscated embeddings that are correctly processed by the machine learning model despite the obfuscation transform. Claim 4 The medium of claim 2, wherein the machine learning model is a foundation model, where the foundation model is operative to perform a plurality of tasks not explicitly measured by an additional objective function used to train the foundation model. Examiner notes that the RefDoc limitations anticipates the limitations of the current claim for the same reasons noted above. Claim 4 The medium of claim 2, wherein the foundation model is operative to perform a plurality of tasks at inference time with capabilities that emerged during training and were not explicitly measured by an objective function used to train the foundation model. Claim 12: The medium of claim 2, further comprising means for tuning the machine learning model based on the training data set and a second objective function. Examiner notes that the RefDoc limitations anticipates the limitations of the current claim for the same reasons noted above Claim 12: The medium of claim 2, further comprising tuning the machine learning model to perform an inference task based on the training data set and a second objective function that is differentiable Claim 14 The medium of claim 2, further comprising applying the obfuscation transform to a set of production input data. Examiner notes that the RefDoc limitations anticipates the limitations of the current claim for the same reasons noted above. Claim 14: The medium of claim 2, further comprising: obtaining one or more records from a production data set; generating, with the stored obfuscation transform, obfuscated embeddings based on the production data set; transmitting the obfuscated embeddings corresponding to the production data set to the machine learning model by a network, and performing an inference on the obfuscated embeddings corresponding to the production data set by the machine learning model, wherein the production data set comprises sensitive data, and wherein the obfuscated embeddings corresponding to the production data set do not comprise sensitive data. Claim 20 A method comprising: obtaining, with a computer system, access to a machine learning model, at least part of the machine learning model configured to generate embeddings based on input data; obtaining, with the computer system, an input data set; determining, by the computer system, embeddings for the input data set based on the machine learning model; obtaining, with the computer system, an obfuscation transform, the obfuscation transform configured to apply noise sampled from one or more parametric noise distributions to at least a plurality of embeddings generated by the machine learning model to generate noisy embeddings; training, by the computer system, the one or more parametric noise distributions by self-supervision based on an objective function that is differentiable, the objective function comprising a measure of mutual information and a measure of data loss; and storing, with the computer system, the obfuscation transform and the trained one or more parametric noise distributions for the machine learning model in memory. Claim 20 A method comprising: obtaining, with a computer system, a access to machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is a trained machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is a foundation model, and wherein the machine learning model generates embeddings based on input records; obtaining, with the computer system, a training data set, the training set containing sensitive data; determining, with the computer system, an obfuscation transform based on the machine learning model and the training data set, wherein determining the obfuscation transform comprises: obtaining training embeddings based on the training set from the machine learning model; generating the obfuscation transform based on dimensionality of the training embeddings, wherein the obfuscation transform injects noise by, for each of at least a plurality of dimensions of the training embedding, sampling from a parametric noise distribution and applying the sampled parametric noise to a given embedding; training the obfuscation transform by adjusting parameters of the parametric noise distribution according to an objective function that is differentiable, wherein the object function comprises a measure of mutual information and a measure of data loss; and storing, with the computer system, the obfuscation transform in memory. 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, 7-12, 14, 16 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). adding, with the computer system, one or more stochastic noise layers to the one or more machine learning models, wherein the one or more stochastic noise layers are additional layers among layers of the one or more machine learning models, and wherein each of the stochastic noise layers injects noise by sampling from one or more parametric noise distributions, at least some of the parametric noise distributions being independent, and adding the sampled parametric noise to the intermediate output of the one or more machine learning models; adjusting, with the computer system, parameters of the parametric noise distributions according to an objective function that is differentiable, wherein the objective function comprises a measure of adversarial loss; (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). obtaining, by a computer system, a training dataset; obtaining, with the computer system, one or more machine learning models, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Receiving or transmitting data over a network) the one or more machine learning models configured to generate …(Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) the intermediate output comprising fewer dimensions than comprise the input, … the reconstruction comprising more dimensions than comprise the intermediate output, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) the one or more machine learning models are trained based on optimization of reconstruction loss (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) and storing, with the computer system, the stochastic noise layers in memory. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Storing and retrieving information in memory) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. First, additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). the obfuscation transform configured to apply noise sampled from one or more parametric noise distributions to at least a plurality of dimensions of the embeddings ((Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). obtaining, by a computer system, access to a machine learning model, at least part of the machine learning model configured to generate … obtaining, by the computer system, an input data set; … obtaining, by the computer system, an obfuscation transform, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Receiving or transmitting data over a network) determining, by the computer system, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) training, by the computer system, the one or more parametric noise distributions by self-supervision based on an objective function that is differentiable … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) … the embeddings generated by the machine learning model to generating noisy embeddings (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) storing, with the computer system, the obfuscation transform and the trained one or more parametric noise distributions for the machine learning model in memory. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Storing and retrieving information in memory) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. First, additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. . (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III; Considered directed to a Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)) Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the machine learning model is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) processed by the machine learning model despite the obfuscation (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. additional objective function . (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the machine learning model is a foundation model, where the foundation model is operative to perform a plurality of tasks … an additional objective function used to train the foundation model, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2 Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the obfuscation transform is applied to input data supplied to the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. First, additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 8: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the obfuscation transform is applied to intermediate input into a layer of the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2 Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the stochastic noise layer is applied to embedded values within the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 10: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea noted in claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the obfuscation transform is configured to obfuscate data designated as being sensitive within input data. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 11: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the machine learning model is an ensemble model; the machine learning model comprises an image-based model, language-based model, or tabular-data-based model; the machine learning model is at least one of an inference model, a classification model, a prediction model, a generative model, or a transformer model; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) and the obfuscation transform is applied to at least a portion of the ensemble model; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). further comprising means for tuning the machine learning model based on the training data set and a second objective function. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 14: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. further comprising applying the obfuscation transform to a set of production input data. (Considered directed to a Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); This limitation requires specific mathematical calculations by referring to the mathematical calculations by name, i.e., obfuscation transform, and therefore recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea.; August 2025 USPTO Memorandum) Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. wherein the obfuscation transform is applied to the set of production input data before the set of production input data is transmitted to at least a portion of the machine learning model. (Considered directed to a Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); This limitation requires specific mathematical calculations by referring to the mathematical calculations by name, i.e., obfuscation transform, and therefore recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea.; August 2025 USPTO Memorandum) Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). applied to the set of production input data before the set of production input data is transmitted to at least a portion of the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) the set of production data is transmitted to the machine learning model (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Receiving or transmitting data over a network) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. First, additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 20: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). distributions to at least a plurality of embeddings generated by the machine learning model to generate noisy embeddings; training, (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). obtaining, with a computer system, access to a machine learning model, … obtaining, with the computer system, an input data set; … obtaining, with the computer system, an obfuscation transform … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Receiving or transmitting data over a network) at least part of the machine learning model configured to generate … determining, by the computer system … training, by the computer system, … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).) and storing, with the computer system, the obfuscation transform and the trained one or more parametric noise distributions for the machine learning model in memory. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Storing and retrieving information in memory) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. First, additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 21: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein access to the machine learning model comprises access to output of the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 22: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein access to the machine learning model comprises access to intermediate output of the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 23: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein access to the machine learning model does not comprise access to weights of the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 24: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein access to the machine learning model does not comprises access to architecture of the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 25: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 2. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). further comprising applying the obfuscation transform to inference data supplied to the machine learning model. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 26: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 25. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein applying the obfuscation transform to the inference data comprises obfuscating sensitive data within the inference data. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Claim 27: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes. Rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Abstract idea from claim 25. Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). wherein the obfuscation transform is applied to the inference inside a security envelope, wherein the machine learning model operates outside the security envelope containing the inference data.. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed elements generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).) The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above. Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application. Additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely invoke the use of computer technology as a tool for applying the judicial exception. These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-12, 14, 16 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as "significantly more”. Status of claims under prior art review Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14, 16 and 20-27 are rejected under the noted statues above. To date no prior art could be found to rendered a rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103. The closes prior art have been cited in the previous office action and are noted below: Wang et al. (NPL: An Improved Convolutional Neural Network Based on Noise Layer ): teaches training adding noise layers to machine learning model to help improve the generalization performance of the model. Triastcyn (NPL: Generating Differentially Private Datasets Using GANs ): teaches adding a Gaussian noise layer in the discriminator network of GAN, so that its output, and therefore the weights of the trained generator, are differentially private with respect to the input data X. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner. The remarks are directed to amended limitations that have not been previously reviewed by the examiner. See current office action. 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. Zadeh et al. (US 20200184278 ): teaches Gaussian noise is a stochastic noise, in [1780] In one embodiment, noise is incorporated into the rendering in order to make the network more resilient to noise. In one embodiment, a stochastic noise (e.g., Gaussian) is applied to the rendering, e.g., in illumination, intensity, texture, color, contrast, saturation, edges, scale, angles, perspective, projection, skew, rotation, or twist, across or for portion(s) of the image. Xiong et al. (US 12001577, hereinafter Xi): teaches adding noise to obfuscate the plaintext output. As described above in connection the process can be performed by a device running a secure service or any suitable device. The inferencing output is the resultant output of a machine learning model, which may comprise a neural network. The inferencing output data comprises plaintext and ciphertext which can be structured. Chakraborty et al. (US 20190156061): teaches adding a noise propagation module is a module that adds noise to the data and the noise generation is performed using an anonymizer placed between an encoder and a decoder. The anonymize ensures that appropriate noise is added to codes such that they are clustered or grouped and each cluster has at least k-members. The anonymizer thus generates noisy code. The noisy codes are then fed to the decoder, which then reconstructs data. The reconstructed data is then passed according to a policy (e.g., through a nearest neighbor decoder) Chhabra et al. (US 20190354806): teaches the addition of one or more noise layers as depicted in Fig. 2to encode input data features PNG media_image1.png 492 648 media_image1.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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. /OLUWATOSIN ALABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129