DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 25 February 2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 and cancelled claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 19. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 remain pending.
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract overcomes the abstract objection of 12 November 2025. Therefore, the abstract objection of 12 November 2025 is withdrawn.
As a result of Applicant amendment to the claims the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of 12 November 2025 is now moot.
The amendment overcomes the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of 12 November 2025. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of 12 November 2025 is withdrawn.
The amendment does not fully overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 12 November 2025, see rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f)
Applicant’s remarks filed 25 February 2026 with respect to independent claim 12 interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of 12 November 2025 are persuasive. As a result of Applicant amendment to claim 12, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of 12 November 2025 is now moot.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(a) rejection of 12 November 2025 is persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of 12 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection below.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks:
It is Applicant's position that claim 1 as amended is not directed towards "mathematical concepts and mental processes" or any abstract idea. Moreover, 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. Claim 1 as amended calls for a "statistical estimation block design." (see, for example, claim 1, FIGS. 2-3, and paragraphs [0008] [0015] and [0051]-[0065] of Applicant's substitute specification). In an example embodiment of the invention as claimed, the statistical estimation block includes a block design. (see, for example, claim 1 and FIG. 2 and paragraphs [0071]-[0076] of Applicant's substitute specification). The block design is "implemented in a form of a lookup- table that stores the modification data which is an output value." (see Id. and paragraphs [0106]- [0110] of Applicant's substitute specification).
Accordingly, Applicant submits as amended is not directed towards "mathematical concepts and mental processes" or to any abstract idea and even if claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, the claim recites additional elements, such as the statistical estimation block, that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11 each depend from and thus include the limitations of claim 1. Thus, Applicant submits that claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11 are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Claim 12 as amended claims similar features to claim 1, and thus is directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above in conjunction with claim 1. Claims 14, 16-18, and 20 depend from and thus include the limitations of claim 12. Thus, Applicant submits that claims 14, 16-18, and 20 are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above.
Examiner’s remarks
The examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea of mathematical concepts and abstract idea of mental process. The claims fail to provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely recite mathematical concepts and mental processes abstract idea, without significantly more see 101 rejection below.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of 12 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed 25 February 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
paragraph 22 “based on whether the original data input value falls within a target range”;
paragraph 113, “the term statistically processing as used herein refers to performing mathematical operations on the received modification data, such as calculating means values, variances, or applying probability density functions to transform the raw modification data inro processed variant data suitable for distribution analysis”; and
paragraph 114, “A high correlation is quantified as a correlation coefficient between the modification data and the original data value x being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold (e.g., 0.7, 0.8, or 0.9). Alternatively, it may be defined by a distance metric where the variance between values is within a specific confidence interval (e.g., 95% confidence).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 further appears to recite new matter of target range which was not provided in the original disclosure.
Claim 9 recites that exceeds a predetermined threshold which was not provided in the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite x’, but fail to define x’ and how x’ differ from x. Furthermore, while the independent claims define y as the modification data and x as the original data, the claims do not particularly point out whether [capital] Y and X also pertains to modification data and original data respectively.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to overcome the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claims 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to overcome the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 12.
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 a statistical estimation block design shared between data providers and data users; generating modification data in a random manner based on a conditional distribution Q (y|x) relative to an original data x within the statistical estimation block design; and calculating 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, 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 claim 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 pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computation 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. Claim 12 recites additional elements of the processing in the block design unit, the modification data generation unit, and the data distribution estimating unit. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 rejections of 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 are 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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