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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 6/7/2024.
Claims 1-21 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed in this application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied and the abstract should not refer to purported merits or compare the invention to the prior art (e.g. “A new approach is proposed that contemplates…”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-14, 17, and 21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 21, the claim limitations “subsystem configured to receive and decrypt”, “subsystem configured to train”, “subsystem configured to apply”, “subsystem configured to provide outcome”, “server configured to receive and transmit”, “gateway configured to decrypt and parse”, “gateway configured to encrypt”, “processing cores configured to process the decrypted data”, “microprocessor core configured to manage data transfer”, “gateways…are configured to define”, “memories configured to store”, “switches configured to connect”, “mobile devices configured to perform”, “mobile devices configured to communicate”, “means for receiving”, “means for training”, “means for applying”, and “means for providing” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner is unable to find the specific corresponding structure, materials, or acts linked to the claimed functions in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3, 7, 9, 11, and 17 use the phrase “and/or”. The use of the phrase “and/or”
enders the scope of the claims unclear because it is unclear whether both limitations are required
or only one of the limitations is required.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvilla et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0303790) hereinafter referred to as Harvilla.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 21, Harvilla disclosed a system, comprising:
a first subsystem having one or more secure processing units, wherein the first subsystem is configured to:
receive and decrypt an encrypted incoming request from a client for training one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example);
train the one or more AI models using data maintained within a first boundary of the first subsystem, wherein the data maintained within the first boundary is first encrypted before such data is accessed by components or devices outside of the first boundary (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); and
one or more second subsystems each having one or more processing units, wherein each of the one or more second subsystems is configured to
apply the one or more trained AI models to perform one or more inference operations (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); and
provide outcome of the one or more inference operations back to the client or to another party (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 2, Harvilla disclosed one or more cloud servers each configured to receive and transmit the encrypted incoming request to the first subsystem, wherein the incoming request is encrypted by the client (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); and receive and transmit the outcome of the one or more inference operations from the one or more second subsystems to the client (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 3, Harvilla disclosed that the processing units of the first subsystem and/or the one or more second subsystems are located at distributed locations and communicate with each other over one or more communication networks via wired or wireless means (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 4, Harvilla disclosed that each of the one or more processing units in each of the first subsystem and/or the one or more of the second subsystems is an architecture suited for organizing and/or processing certain type of data or an architecture suited for a neural network for network processing (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 6, Harvilla disclosed that at least one of the one or more processing units in each of the first subsystem and/or the one or more of the second subsystems is a general purpose processing unit which configuration is updated as requirements evolve (Harvilla Paragraphs 0065-0057 for example).
Regarding claim 16, Harvilla disclosed encrypting the incoming request by the client (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 17, Harvilla disclosed decrypting and parsing the encrypted incoming request into a set of computation instructions and/or data to be processed (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); processing the decrypted data by executing the set of computation instructions to generate the outcome (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); and encrypting the outcome before providing the encrypted outcome (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 18, Harvilla disclosed defining a second boundary for the one or more inference operations, wherein the data maintained within the second boundary is first encrypted before such data is accessed by components or devices outside of the second boundary (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 19, Harvilla disclosed utilizing the one or more trained AI models to perform the one or more inference operations on data maintained outside of the second boundary (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 20, Harvilla disclosed performing the one or more inference operations on data maintained either inside or outside of the second boundary via one or more mobile devices (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0046-0049 for example); and communicating with clients associated with the one or more mobile devices visually, audibly, digitally, textually, or via other sensing means (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvilla.
Regarding claim 5, Harvilla did not explicitly teach that each of the one or more processing units in each of the first subsystem and/or the one or more of the second subsystems is one of an open source core, a licensed core, and a core selected from a proprietary catalog provided by the client or a customer community.
Official Notice: These were all well-known and common processing options before the effective filing date of the invention, and as such would have been obvious for the person having ordinary skill in the art to try when implementing the system of Harvilla. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a known specific means for the generically taught processors of Harvilla.
Regarding claim 7, Harvilla did not explicitly teach at least one of the one or more processing units in each of the first subsystem and/or the one or more of the second subsystems is a customized processing unit hard-coded with a specific processing algorithm tailored for one or more specific applications.
Official Notice: These were all well-known and common processing options before the effective filing date of the invention, and as such would have been obvious for the person having ordinary skill in the art to try when implementing the system of Harvilla. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a known specific means for the generically taught processors of Harvilla.
Claims 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvilla, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0356670) hereinafter referred to as Cheng.
Regarding claim 9, Harvilla taught the system including a gateway configured to decrypt and parse the encrypted incoming request into a set of computation instructions and/or data to be processed (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); encrypt the outcome before providing the encrypted outcome (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example);
one or more processing cores configured to process the decrypted data by executing the set of computation instructions to generate the outcome (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example); and a microprocessor core configured to manage data transfer between the gateway and the one or more processing cores (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Harvilla did not explicitly teach that each of the one or more secure processing units in the first subsystem includes one or more secure multi-core data processing units (SMC DPUs), wherein each SMC DPU comprises: a gateway configured to decrypt and parse the encrypted incoming request into a set of computation instructions and/or data to be processed; encrypt the outcome before providing the encrypted outcome; one or more processing cores configured to process the decrypted data by executing the set of computation instructions to generate the outcome; and a microprocessor core configured to manage data transfer between the gateway and the one or more processing cores.
Cheng taught a multiparty computing system where each of the one or more secure processing units in the first subsystem includes one or more secure multi-core data processing units (SMC DPUs), wherein each SMC DPU comprises: a gateway configured to decrypt and parse the encrypted incoming request into a set of computation instructions and/or data to be processed; encrypt the outcome before providing the encrypted outcome; one or more processing cores configured to process the decrypted data by executing the set of computation instructions to generate the outcome; and a microprocessor core configured to manage data transfer between the gateway and the one or more processing cores (Cheng Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0031, and 0041-0042 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Cheng in the processing system of Harvilla by implementing the processing of Harvilla in the analogous system of Cheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to help ensure that the data of the training system does not leak to untrusted parties.
Regarding claim 10, Harvilla and Cheng taught that the gateways of the plurality of the one or more SMC DPUs are configured to define the first boundary of the first subsystem (Cheng Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0031, and 0041-0042 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Cheng in the processing system of Harvilla by implementing the processing of Harvilla in the analogous system of Cheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to help ensure that the data of the training system does not leak to untrusted parties.
Regarding claim 12, Harvilla and Cheng taught that one of the one or more second subsystems includes one or more SMC DPUs that defines a second boundary for the one or more inference operations, wherein the data maintained within the second boundary is first encrypted before such data is accessed by components or devices outside of the second boundary (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example and Cheng Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0031, and 0041-0042 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Cheng in the processing system of Harvilla by implementing the processing of Harvilla in the analogous system of Cheng. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to help ensure that the data of the training system does not leak to untrusted parties.
Regarding claim 13, Harvilla and Cheng taught that one of the one or more second subsystems includes one or more non-secure multi-core DPUs configured to utilize the one or more trained AI models to perform the one or more inference operations on data maintained outside of the second boundary (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Regarding claim 14, Harvilla and Cheng taught that one of the one or more second subsystems includes one or more mobile devices configured to perform the one or more inference operations on data maintained either inside or outside of the second boundary; and communicate with their associated clients visually, audibly, digitally, textually, or via other sensing means (Harvilla Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0046-0049 for example).
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0143267 taught a system for managing information for model training using a distributed blockchain ledger including generating and training a distributed machine learning model using data received from a plurality of third parties using a distributed ledger system, such as a blockchain. As each third party submits data suitable for model training, the data submissions are recorded onto the distributed ledger. By traversing the ledger, the learning platform identifies what data has been submitted and by which parties, and trains a model using the submitted data. Each party is also able to remove their data from the learning platform, which is also reflected in the distributed ledger. The distributed ledger thus maintains a record of which parties submitted data, and which parties removed their data from the learning platform, allowing for different third parties to contribute data for model training, while retaining control over their submitted data by being able to remove their data from the learning platform. The system includes encryption and decryption of the data and models as appropriate.
US 2022/0060455 taught a secure computing device including an edge computing device includes a System-on-Module (SoM) device that communicates over USB to provide security and provides hardware artificial intelligence acceleration and hardware encryption to the edge computing device. The SoM device includes a hardware encryption module with an encryption key shared between the SoM device and the cloud server that creates an identity for the SoM device and secure authentication of the identity of the SoM device between the SoM device and a cloud server. The hardware encryption module is configured to have a secure root of trust, the ability to attest software containers distributed from the cloud server, and protect data processed on the SoM device and transmitted to the cloud server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights