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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 June 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent spelling of behavior vs behaviour and incorrect spelling of “secret”.
In particular [0003] has the correct spelling “behavior”, the rest of the specification has the spelling as behaviour, see at least [0025], [0028], [0029] (US PgPub 20250045632). Appropriate correction is required.
In particular [0019] and [0021] recite –secrete– this should be corrected to recite “secret.” Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested applicant review the entire specification for other inconsistent and/or mis-spelled terms and make appropriate corrections.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such limitation is seen in claim 1: “means ensuring the identity of the participating data owner.” Corresponding structure can be found [51]-[52] of the corresponding PgPub of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recite “at least one algorithm provider” in lines 3-4 and changes to “an algorithm provider” in line 6. These appear to be the same elements but recited differently, it is recommended to use consistent claim language throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “participating” in line 13 , it appears this should be “participate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 and 8 recite –secrete protocol— instead of “secret protocol.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12 and 13 recite “behaviour” instead of “behavior” as discussed above for the specification objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “either” should be deleted in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested applicant review the claims for other inconsistent and/or mis-spelled terms and make appropriate corrections.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the algorithm" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the identity" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the participating data owners" in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “them” in line 27, it is not clear what “them” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “optimizing”/”optimized” in claims 2 and 13 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimizing”/”optimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation wherein the acceptance manifest comprises an IP address of the participating data owner, a data owner certificate, and the claim also recites optionally a public key of the participating data owner which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the data owners" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “homomorphic plane” in line 5, this is not a term of the art, it is not clear what this term encompasses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the optimized model" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should claim 13 depend on claim 2? Appropriate correction is required.
Closest Prior Art
US 2019/0334716 A1 (Kocsis et al.) discloses or suggests several background concepts, including blockchain task management, distributed machine-learning contributors, encrypted model sharing, and model fusion. Kocsis et al., however, does not disclose a blockchain-deployed training management provider coordinating acceptance manifests or generation of compiled MPC code based on those manifests or execution of the compiled MPC code by the data owners and algorithm provider; or generation of the model through an MPC peer-to-peer network.
US 2020/0218940 A1 (Anglin et al.) discloses computer-implemented distributed machine learning, data providers having private training and testing datasets,
model owners/trainers and model engines, blockchain infrastructure and smart contracts, recording participant contributions and model changes in a blockchain ledger,
secure data and model access using encrypted keys, and creation and updating of models based on participant data. Anglin et al. does not the claimed combination of blockchain-coordinated training management, training and acceptance manifests, participant identity information in the acceptance manifests, generation of compiled MPC code, distribution and execution of that code by the participants and algorithm provider, and generation of an MPC peer-to-peer network for aggregating local models.
US 2021/0357800 A1 (Sharma et al.) discloses several broad aspects of claim 1, such as distributed machine-learning nodes, local datasets, local model training, peer-to-peer model sharing, and aggregation of local and neighboring models. Sharma et al. however does not disclose a blockchain network with a deployed training management provider, a training manifest, participant acceptance manifests containing identity information, generating complied multi-parti computation code based on the acceptance manifests, executing the compiled MPC doe by the data owners and the algorithm provider or generating an MPC peer-to-peer network through that execution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah M Monfeldt whose telephone number is (571)270-1833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
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.
SARAH M. MONFELDT
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights