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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 June 2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, and 12; cancelled claims 3, 6, 10, 13, and 19. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks:
“…even if claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites features that, when taken together, provide for an improved data processing and estimation model for privacy protection…. “
Examiner’s remarks:
The claim limitations do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a field of use by “to evaluate privacy protection of the processing technique Q”. The steps of the data processing and the estimation model are directed to the judicial exception. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)).
In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. However, merely reciting the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the claims recites an abstract idea of mathematical concepts and an abstract idea of mental process without providing significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “calculating, by a data distribution calculating unit,…”, “generating, by a modification data generation unit,…”, and “ designing, by a block design unit…” in claim 1. The limitations are being interpreted according to paragraphs 141-142 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea-mathematical concepts and mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “designing, by a block design unit, a statistical estimation block design shared between data providers and data users; generating, by a modification data generating unit, modification data in a random manner based on a conditional distribution Q (y|x) of a data processing technique Q, relative to an original data x within the statistical estimation block design; and calculating, by a data distribution calculating unit, a distribution of the original data by applying an estimation function to the statistical estimation block design wherein the statistical estimation block design comprises a (v,b,r,k, λ)-block design defined as a set (X, Y, J,) of two finite sets X, Y and ordered pairs of elements J c X x Y of the two finite sets X, Y, and the (v,b, r, k, λ)-block design is implemented in a form of a lookup-table that stores the modification data which is an output value, as true (O) or false (X) corresponding to the original data which is an input value, wherein "v" is a number of elements of the lookup-table, "b" is the size of a modification data value set of the lookup-table, "r" is a number of truths (O) in one row of the lookup-table, "k" is a number of truths (O) in one column of the lookup-table and "" is a number of overlapping truths (O) in any two rows of the lookup-table, wherein the statistical estimation block design satisfies:
condition 1 that ]X] = v and |Y] = b,
condition 2 that a number of y ϵ Y being (x,y) ϵ J is r for each x ϵ X ,
condition 3 that a number of x ϵ X being (x,y) ϵ J is k for each y ϵ Y, and
condition 4 that a number of y ϵ Y being (x, y),(x',y) ϵ J is λ for each different x,x' ϵX’, wherein the estimation function is defined by
PNG
media_image1.png
50
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where b is the size of the set of modification data values of the lookup-table, r is the number of truths (O) in one row of the lookup-table, λ is the number of overlapping truths (O) in any two rows of the lookup-table, “ε” is privacy leakage limit, “X” is original data, “Y” is modification data, “x” is another original data set, and
PNG
media_image2.png
25
102
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the number of data highly related to
PNG
media_image3.png
20
16
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in
PNG
media_image4.png
25
68
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The limitations pertain to system and method for privacy protection, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts and mental process abstract idea. Nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from being mathematical concepts combined with being a mental process abstract idea being performed in the human mind with pencil and paper. For claims 1 and 12, other than reciting various computational units for implementing the method, nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from being mathematical concepts and mental process abstract idea. The method can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computational units. Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 12 recites additional elements of the processing in the block design unit, the modification data generation unit, and the data distribution calculating unit. The processing units 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 no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 12 do not provide clear technical improvement to a technical field beyond the abstract idea of mathematical concepts for data processing. The claims does not provide a technical solution with improvement in the field of privacy preserving data processing. Thus, claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 presents limitations that is merely post solution activity of transmitting data. This limitation is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Claim 2 is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4 and 14 recite limitations that further narrow the statistical estimation block design limitations in the independent claims. In addition, said claim(s) also provide storage of data which is also considered post solution activity that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Because the limitation(s) do(es) not add any significant element, the claim(s) do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Likewise, for the same rational, the claim(s) also therefore do(es) not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 4 and 14 are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 5 presents limitations that further narrow the look-up table limitations presented in claim 4. Because the limitation(s) do(es) not add any significant element, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Likewise, for the same rational, the claim also therefore does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7 and 16 recite limitations that further narrow generated modification limitations in the independent claims. The claims covers methods that can be perform in the human mind using pencil and paper and mathematical concepts. Because the limitation(s) do(es) not add any significant element, the claim(s) do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Likewise, for the same rational, the claim(s) also therefore do(es) not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 7 and 16 are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 8 and 17 recite limitations that further narrow the probability limitations in the claims 7 and 16 respectively that are merely mathematical concepts . Because the limitation(s) do(es) not add any significant element, the claim(s) do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Likewise, for the same rational, the claim(s) also therefore do(es) not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 8 and 17 are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 9 and 18 recite limitations that further narrow estimating the statistic limitations in the independent claims. The claims covers methods that can be perform in the human mind using pencil and paper and mathematical concepts. The additional element of receiving the modification data from data providers is considered insignificant solution activity that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Because the limitation(s) do(es) not add any significant element, the claim(s) do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Likewise, for the same rational, the claim(s) also therefore do(es) not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 9 and 18 are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 11 and 20 recite limitations that further narrow the number Nx limitations i that are merely mathematical concepts . Because the limitation(s) do(es) not add any significant element, the claim(s) do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Likewise, for the same rational, the claim(s) also therefore do(es) not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 11 and 20 are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 would be allowable if the outstanding rejection 35 USC 101 is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner does not find references on record anticipating nor a combination of references making obvious to “wherein the estimation function is defined by
PNG
media_image1.png
50
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where b is the size of the set of modification data values of the lookup-table, r is the number of truths (O) in one row of the lookup-table, λ is the number of overlapping truths (O) in any two rows of the lookup-table, and
PNG
media_image2.png
25
102
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the number of data highly related to
PNG
media_image3.png
20
16
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in
PNG
media_image4.png
25
68
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” in combination to all the limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/F.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights