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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 7) regarding the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 11.
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 8) regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims.
The Applicant’s arguments (see pages 8-10) regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is deemed persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant argues (see page 12) that under the present claims, the sensitive information itself is excluded and replaced with constrained semantic abstractions selected from finite enumerated spaces. The resulting prompt therefore preserves semantic utility for the LLM while limiting leakage associated with the sensitive data to combinations of the predefined finite enumerated values. Neither Gomez nor Gonzalez teaches or suggests such bounded semantic abstraction architecture. Further, neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed deterministic translation operation. Gonzalez substitutes entities with semantically similar replacement entities. Gomez substitutes sensitive information with hashes, UUIDs, or tokens. Neither reference discloses deterministic translation from finite enumerated semantic abstractions into textual descriptions that semantically represent the sensitive data while excluding the sensitive data itself.
In response, the Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites “the process comprising:”, which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “causing a processing circuitry to execute a process” was removed from claim 10. Therefore, there is no longer antecedent basis for the limitation “the process” in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for secure and privacy preserving operation of a large language model (LLM), the process comprising:…” However, limitation “executed by processing circuitry” was removed from the claim. Claim 10 no longer requires the instructions to be executed by a processor or circuitry. Therefore, it is unclear how the steps in the claim can be performed without the instruction being executed by a processor or circuitry. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the instructions, when executed by a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to execute a process comprising:…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This include:
U.S. PGPub 2025/0094611, which describes systems and methods for protecting certain personal data used by large language models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights