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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Non-statutory Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The double patenting rejection of claims 1 – 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim language still does not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant argues the new limitation requires the generation of an anonymized view and is, therefore, a practical application. However, the determination of an optimal node to the data set is still considered a mental process, the claims do not disclose the anonymization process link to the generalization lattice and determination of the optimal node. Therefore, it appears mere determination of the optimal node for a generalization lattice presents an anonymization process. Furthermore, mere claiming of generating a view is mere use of a generic computing component to perform the abstract idea. Further clarification of the link between the determination of the optimal node in the generalization lattice and how the anonymized view is created therefrom may be sufficient in disclosing the practical application as argued as well as the prior art of record. However, the current claim language does not render the 35 USC 101 rejection moot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of El Emam in view of Moncrieff. See rejection below..
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the determination of a path through levels of a generalization lattice, including utilization of a scoring function to determine an optimal node during traversal of the path, and applying the optimal node to a data set to generate an anonymized view. The determination of a path through the generalization lattice, selection of an optimal node and applying the optimal node constitutes a mental process, and further use of scoring functions, such as the loss functions of the specification is the use of mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships for minimization of the loss of data during generalization path selection. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: for claim 1, the processing device is a generic computing component and the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; for claim 8, the processing device and memory to store instructions are generic computing components and the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; for claim 15, the computer readable medium and processing device are generic computing components and the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements described above (processing device, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) are directed to the mere implementation of the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the use of generalization lattice comprising a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of levels, and determination of a path between nodes through the lattice is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality that is appended to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the dependent claims recite elements that constitute mental processes and use of mathematical relationships for the determination of optimal nodes for the plurality of levels each with a plurality of corresponding nodes, include designating a first node and using scoring functions in the determination of optimal nodes, as well as designation the structure for representations of the levels of generalization of N columns of quasi-identifier data, tuples thereof, use of a loss functions, designation of direction for the path (starting at the top) and computing a plurality of paths. The above limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, additional elements thereof are merely using a computer to perform the abstract idea, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality that is appended to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 12 and 14 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0332537 issued to El Emam et al (hereinafter El Emam) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0140190 issued to Simon Moncrieff (hereinafter Moncrieff).
As to claim 1, El Emam discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a processing device, a path through a plurality of levels of a generalization lattice, wherein the path comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of levels, and wherein the path is constructed by, at each level, selecting a node from a plurality of candidate nodes at the level based on a scoring function that utilizes a corresponding parent node that was previously added to the path (generalization paths through the nodes of the lattice, each row (level) of nodes representing the next possible instance of the data set, and determination of optimal solution (path) by determination of optimal node for each row (level), and utilization of information loss metrics to determine optimal solutions for each row of a path by selection at each level the lowest suppression amount until the MaxSup limit is reached, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6, selection of the lower suppression % at each level until the max suppression limit is reached is a scoring function that utilizes the parent node previously added, see El Emam’s example of the path to optimal node 230 in Fig. 2 and “using known method the node with the lowest lattice height should be selected as the optimal solution. In the example, this would be node <d0, g1, a1> 230. The basic idea is that this solution balances the extent of generalization with the extent of suppression” in Para. 0047); and
selecting an optimal node from the plurality of nodes (determination of the optimal node for each row in the calculation of each generalization path, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6); and
applying the optimal node to data set corresponding to the generalization lattice to generate an anonymized data set (generation anonymized data set to produce quasi-identifiers but not personal information, see El Emam: Para. 0025 - 0030).
However, while El Emam discloses anonymizing a data set so personal information is not distributed (see Para. 0025), El Emam does not explicitly disclose generating a view of the data set.
Moncrieff discloses generating a anonymized view of the data set (generate and parse the data view with the filter mask that complies with the privacy policy based on probability or K-anonymity, see Moncrieff: Para. 0159 – 0163, 0167, 0197 – 0198, 0215 and 0223).
Moncrieff and El Emam are analogous for their disclosure of using data privacy mechanisms such as K-anonymity for managing data privacy and generalization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify El Emam’s use of determining optimal paths through a generalization lattice and use of k-anonymity mechanisms with Moncrieff’s use of k-anonymity and generalization in creation of data views that meet privacy policy in order to generate a representation of data compliant with one or more criteria, such as privacy requirements (Moncrieff: Para. 0001).
As to claim 2, El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the path through the plurality of levels further comprises:
in response to determining that the corresponding parent node is a first node, from the plurality of nodes, on a first level of the generalization lattice, computing, using the scoring function, a plurality of first values from the corresponding parent node to a plurality of second nodes on a second level of the generalization lattice (the height for the lattice starting from 0 – 7 (as per the example of Fig. 2), with the first node starting at 0 and determination of optimal node through the generalization path using the particular variables for loss metric determination at each row (level) of the lattice, such information loss metrics such as Suppression, Precision, Discernability, etc., the path and loss metrics part of a traversal through the rows (levels) of the lattice where each node is a possible instance in the data set, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6); and
determining, based on the plurality of first values, a best node from the plurality of second nodes on the second level of the generalization lattice to add to the plurality of nodes (determination of optimal node for the generalization path at each row (level) of the lattice, the example of Fig. 2 having a height 0 – 7, or 8 rows with a starter row and a stop row with 6 rows of nodes for the path in between, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6).
As to claim 3, El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of levels each represent a different level of generalization of N columns of quasi-identifier data comprised in the data set, and wherein each one of the plurality of second nodes comprises a tuple that represents combinations of generalizations of the N columns of the quasi-identifier data, and wherein the tuple for each one of the plurality of second nodes corresponds to a number of generalizations for each column of the N columns based on a data hierarchy corresponding to the column (generalizations for quasi-identifiers from a lattice and generalization paths, wherein nodes in each row of the lattice represent possible instances of the data set, such as the generalizations for admission date, gender and age (columns of the quasi-identifier data) being nodes in the path, determination of multiple generalization paths to determine an optimal node for each row (level) of the lattice, including the use of information loss metrics with variable values (such generalizing an age column data by varying intervals) to determine various path heights for an optimal solution path for both height and nodes within the row, as well as utilization of more than one type of information loss metric, such as the use of precision, discernability, suppression, etc. to determine the optimal nodes for the optimal solution, see El Emam: Para. 0035 – 0040, 0049 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6, the example of d, g and a values representing the tuples for the nodes corresponding to the generalization for the columns).
As to claim 4, El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
computing, using the scoring function, a plurality of second values from the best node on the second level to a plurality of third nodes on a third level of the generalization lattice (determination of optimal node for the generalization path at each row (level) of the lattice, the example of Fig. 2 having a height 0 – 7, or 8 rows with a starter row and a stop row with 6 rows of nodes for the path in between, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6, so for each loss function measure (precision, discernability, suppression, etc.) an optimal node at each level (such as heights 1 – 6 in the example of Fig. 2) is determined, which is an optimal node at the first level, second level, third level, etc.); and
determining, based on the plurality of second values, a subsequent best node from the plurality of third nodes on the third level of the generalization lattice to add to the plurality of nodes (determination of optimal node for the generalization path at each row (level) of the lattice, the example of Fig. 2 having a height 0 – 7, or 8 rows with a starter row and a stop row with 6 rows of nodes for the path in between, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6, so for each loss function measure (precision, discernability, suppression, etc.) an optimal node at each level (such as heights 1 – 6 in the example of Fig. 2) is determined, which is an optimal node at the first row of nodes, second row of nodes, third row of nodes, etc.).
As to claim 5, El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optimal node is a node that is used to initialize a lattice search algorithm by providing a bound on an information loss function (the optimal node is determined based on the lowest loss of information to prevent reduction of utility of the data as it is generalized, for example in a Precision information loss metric the more a variable is generalized, the higher the information loss. Moreover, variables with more generalization steps (i.e., more levels in their generalization hierarchy) tend to have less information loss than ones with shorter hierarchies, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6).
As to claim 7, El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing a plurality of paths through the generalization lattice using a plurality of scoring functions, wherein the plurality of paths comprise the path and the plurality of scoring functions comprise the scoring function (determination of multiple generalization paths to determine an optimal node for each row (level) of the lattice, including the use of information loss metrics with variable values (such generalizing an age column data by varying intervals) to determine various path heights for an optimal solution path for both height and nodes within the row, as well as utilization of more than one type of information loss metric, such as the use of precision, discernability, suppression, etc. to determine the optimal nodes for the optimal solution, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6); and
selecting the optimal node from the plurality of paths (determination of multiple generalization paths to determine an optimal node for each row (level) of the lattice, including the use of information loss metrics with variable values (such generalizing an age column data by varying intervals) to determine an optimal solution path for both height and nodes within the row, as well as utilization of more than one type of information loss metric, such as the use of precision, discernability, suppression, etc. to determine the optimal nodes for the optimal solution, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6).
Claims 8 – 12 and 14 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claims 1 – 5 and 7 above.
Claims 15 – 19 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claims 1 – 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Emam in view Moncrieff, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,074 issued to Ganz (hereinafter Ganz).
As to claim 6, El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the path commences at a start node and terminates at an end node (determination of optimal node for the generalization path at each row (level) of the lattice, the example of Fig. 2 having a height 0 – 7, or 8 rows with a starter row and a stop row with 6 rows of nodes for the path in between, see El Emam: Para. 0030 – 0041, 0044 – 0050, 0062 – 0063 and 0078 – 0080 and Figures 2, 5 and 6, so for each loss function measure (precision, discernability, suppression, etc.) an optimal node at each level (such as heights 1 – 6 in the example of Fig. 2) is determined, which is an optimal node at the first row of nodes, second row of nodes, third row of nodes, etc.).
While El Emam modified by Moncrieff discloses the traversal through the nodes at each level may be in any direction (see El Emam: Para. 0066), El Emam does not explicitly disclose wherein the start node is a top node of the generalization lattice and the end node is a bottom node of the generalization lattice.
Ganz teaches wherein the start node is a top node of the generalization lattice and the end node is a bottom node of the generalization lattice (during generalization, the start may be with the base node towards the locus node or start with the locus node towards the base node, see Ganz: Col. 68, line 41 – Col. 69 line 3).
Ganz, Moncrieff and El Emam are analogous due to their disclosure of generalization of nodes in a graph and optimization thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify El Emam and Moncrieff’s use determining a path by optimal node selection in a generalization lattice with Ganz’s use of starting at the top (locus) or bottom (base) nodes during generalization path optimization in order to the layout and augmentation of hierarchical structures representing project information, including projects themselves and related information; to exploration through hierarchical structures; and to maintenance of those structures when modified in a collaborative setting (see Ganz: Col. 1 lines 16 – 21).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claim 6 above.
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 MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164