CTFR 18/688,893 CTFR 84382 DETAILED ACTION The applicant’s amendment filed on February 17, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-7, as amended, are currently pending and have been considered below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the actions related to calculating a security evaluation index, which is a mathematical concept. Under Step 1, claims 1-5 and 7 recite an apparatus, claim 6 recite a method. As such each of the claims falls within one of the statutory categories. Under Step 2(a) – Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). In the instant case the claims recite inputting: a synthesized data generation algorithm M…, a data set D…, a sensitivity range R D …, calculating a probability density function…, calculating, as U(t)…, and calculating, as a security evaluation index for randomness…, which are all part of the mathematical concept as they are part of the mathematical calculations. While the claims recite a computer, a processor, memory that includes instructions, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, these elements merely apply the mathematical concept on a generic computer. That is as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) merely applying the abstract idea or mathematical concept on a computer is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application. In this case at no point is the calculation used, rather the claims merely gather or input data and use that data to perform the calculations. As such this is merely a mathematical formula and therefore just an abstract idea. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) – I. Mathematical Concepts ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199.” In this case the limitations fail to recite any other inventive concept or application of the abstract idea. In this case the limitations merely recite the calculations but not the use of those calculations. As stated above while the claims recite additional elements in the form of generic computing hardware, the claims merely apply the abstract idea to a computer and as such fail to render the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). That is to say the claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform the process. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation ) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more . See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” As such when considered individually or in combination the elements fail to render the claims into a practical application. The claims as amended, recite “wherein the calculated security evaluation index represents a degree of indistinguishability of the data set D and is used to technically evaluate a privacy protection safety level of the synthesized data generation algorithm M”. The amendments merely establish what the data represents which is describing the data and does not establish how the data is utilized to achieve a specific result. The applicant has argued that the limitations amount to using the data, however the amendment describes what the data is to be used for. That is the claims recite intended use of the data, not actively using the calculations to achieve a result. That is the claims do not establish how it is used to evaluate a privacy protection safety level or what that value is used for. As such these calculations fail to render the application into a practical application and the rejections have therefore been maintained. Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted the above the claims recite mathematical formula which is the abstract idea and the additional structure or hardware is merely generic computing structures which is merely applying a computer to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). As such the abstract idea has not been rendered into a practical application. As state above the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – a computer, a processor, memory that includes instructions, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The hardware in claimed limitations is recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic hardware. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Step 2(b) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As noted above there are no additional elements which indicate that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-5, recite elements which amount to mathematical calculations and as such fails to render the abstract idea into a practical application as noted above. Dependent claim 7, recites a non-transitory computer-readable cording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon…. which is executed by the processor in the…apparatus according to claim 1, which establishes additional elements but as stated above this is merely applying the abstract idea on a generic computing structure, see MPEP 2106.05(f). As such these limitations fail to render the abstract into a practical application. Thus when considered individually or as a combination these elements do not amount to a practical application. As such claims 1-7 recite an abstract idea and fail to render the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7, specifically that, “Claim 1 has been amended to recite that "the calculated security evaluation index represents a degree of indistinguishability of the data set D and is used to technically evaluate a privacy protection safety level of the synthesized data generation algorithm M."” “Amended claim 1 now expressly requires the technical use of the calculated security evaluation index to evaluate a privacy protection safety level of the synthesized data generation algorithm M, thereby addressing the Examiner's concern that the claim previously recited only a calculation without any required usage of the calculated index.” “As described in the specification, Ɛ is not merely a mathematical value in the abstract, but rather a technical index indicating how difficult it is to distinguish whether an output of the synthesized data generation algorithm Mis obtained from the privacy protection target data set D or an adjacent data set D'. Therefore, Ɛ represents an indistinguishability index of the data set D, and enables evaluation of privacy protection safety for randomness in data generation. (See paragraph [0025].)” “Further, the specification explains that the safety evaluation index calculation apparatus calculates Ɛ as an index with which the safety of privacy protection for the randomness that the synthesized data generation algorithm M originally has in data generation can be evaluated, and that such safety can be evaluated with higher accuracy than in the related art. (See paragraphs [0005] and [0075].) Thus, the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a specific problem in the field of privacy-preserving technology.” “Moreover, the specification expressly describes a practical technical application of the calculated index Ɛ. Specifically, it is possible to reduce an amount of noise added to the generation parameter while ensuring the same safety, thereby generating more useful synthesized data while protecting privacy. As an application example, the apparatus may generate a generation parameter in which the amount of noise is reduced further than in the related art while guaranteeing a predetermined safety by the safety evaluation index E, and may generate synthesized data from the generation parameter. (See paragraph [0076].)” “Accordingly, the claims are directed to a specific technical application in the field of privacy-preserving synthesized data generation technology, rather than a mathematical concept in the abstract.” “Independent claims 6 and 7 have been amended in a similar manner.” “Therefore, claims 1-7 recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments merely establish what the data represents which is describing the data and does not establish how the data is utilized to achieve a specific result. The applicant has argued that the limitations amount to using the data, however the amendment describes what the data is to be used for. That is the claims recite intended use of the data, not actively using the calculations to achieve a result. That is the claims do not establish how it is used to evaluate a privacy protection safety level or what that value is used for. As such these calculations fail to render the application into a practical application and the rejections have therefore been maintained. The applicant has argued that the claims amount to a practical technical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above the claims to now establish how the data is used but rather merely the intended purpose of the data, but not specifics as to how the data achieves the results claimed. As such the claims have not be rendered into a practical application and the rejections have been maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL R FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm. 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571)272-8878. 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. PAUL R. FISHER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2498 /PAUL R FISHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498 5/30/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 2 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 3 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 4 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 5 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 6 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 7 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 8 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 9 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 10 Art Unit: 2498 Application/Control Number: 18/688,893 Page 11 Art Unit: 2498
Prosecution Insights