DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to continuation application filed on July 18th, 2024.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 12,047,243. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patent mentioned above anticipates claims 1~20 of the instant application. See table for comparison of claims 1 between the instant application and the U.S Patents.
Application: 18/776,513
U.S Patent 12,047,243
A method of generating a synthetic network, the method comprising: receiving, by a group structure identification module, anonymized input data related to an original network, the anonymized input data comprising an anonymized list of nodes, a list of edges and a list of groups; determining, by the group structure identification module, for each pair of nodes, a probability of an edge between the pair of nodes, a resulting list of probabilities corresponding to a summary group structure; and generating, by a synthetic random network generation module, at least one synthetic random network based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities.
A method of generating synthetic networks for uncovering a covert network, the method comprising: receiving, by a group structure identification module, anonymized input data related to an original network, the original network having a first structure, the anonymized input data comprising an anonymized list of nodes, a list of edges and a list of groups; determining, by the group structure identification module, for each pair of nodes, a probability of an edge between the pair of nodes, a resulting list of probabilities corresponding to a summary group structure; and generating, by a synthetic random network generation module, a plurality of synthetic random networks based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities, each of the plurality of synthetic random networks having a respective second structure that is different than each other respective second structure and the first structure of the original network; and analyzing each of the respective second structures and the first structure to determine whether the original network is a covert network.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1 and 11 recite:
“receiving, by a group structure identification module, anonymized input data related to an original network, the anonymized input data comprising an anonymized list of nodes, a list of edges and a list of groups; determining, by the group structure identification module, for each pair of nodes, a probability of an edge between the pair of nodes, a resulting list of probabilities corresponding to a summary group structure; and generating, by a synthetic random network generation module, at least one synthetic random network based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities.”
The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “modules”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “determining…a probability” and “generating… a synthetic random network” in the context of these claims encompasses computerizing a manual process of generating a network graph. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
1. The claims recite additional elements “modules” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
2. The claims recite additional element of “receiving anonymized input data…” which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because claims 1 and 11 as a whole is silent regarding specific limitations directed to improving a computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or the Internet, nor do Applicants direct any attention to such specific limitations.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11 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 elements of “modules”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the insignificant extra solution activity of “receiving…” simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize receiving or transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2~10 and 12~20
Claims 2~10 and 12~20 recite elements/limitations that also fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as identified above and also recite elements/limitations that are insignificant extra solution activity that simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 2~10 and 12~20 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: a group structure identification module configured to, a synthetic random network generation module configured to, and a data anonymization module configured to.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 11~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 15 contains limitations, a group structure identification module configured to, a synthetic random network generation module configured to, and a data anonymization module configured to which are means (or step) plus function limitations that 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 the claimed function.
Claims 12~14, and 16~20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 11.
Claims 11~20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 15 contains limitations, a group structure identification module configured to, a synthetic random network generation module configured to, and a data anonymization module configured to which 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. 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.
Claims 12~14, and 16~20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 11.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Disrupting resilient criminal networks through data analysis” by Cavallaro et al. hereinafter Cavallaro in view of “Graph and Network Theory for the Analysis of Criminal Networks” by Cavallaro et al. hereinafter Cavallaro-2.
Regarding Claim 1,
Cavallaro taught a method of generating a synthetic network, the method comprising:
receiving, by a group structure identification module, anonymized input data related to an original network, the anonymized input data comprising an anonymized list of nodes, a list of edges and a list of groups (Pgs. 7~8, “Dataset collection”, boss denoted as x to preserve anonymity; participants of the meetings identified by unique ID code; each person who participated in at least one meeting corresponds to a node in the network; two subjects in the meetings network are connected by an edge if both attended at least one meeting; Pg. 9, Nodes may belong to different categories. Some nodes represent the leaders (i.e., “bosses”) or the soldiers of the criminal organization);
Cavallaro did not specifically teach determining, by the group structure identification module, for each pair of nodes, a probability of an edge between the pair of nodes, a resulting list of probabilities corresponding to a summary group structure and generating, by a synthetic random network generation module, at least one synthetic random network based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities.
Cavallaro-2 taught determining, by the group structure identification module, for each pair of nodes, a probability of an edge between the pair of nodes, a resulting list of probabilities corresponding to a summary group structure (Pg. 5, a random network consists of nodes where each node pair is connected with probability p); and
generating, by a synthetic random network generation module, at least one synthetic random network based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities (Pg. 5, §0.0.2 Artificial Networks, Random Network Model construction needs N nodes, node pair selection with random number r connected with probability p and repeated for all pairs of distinct nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Cavallaro-2’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Cavallaro, because the combination would identify the appropriate synthetic network which could simulate criminal networks artificially, but in an effective manner (Pg. 11, §Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 2,
Cavallaro taught further comprising classifying, by the group structure identification module, each edge into a selected class, and generating, by the group structure identification module, a corresponding randomized weight for each class separately (Pg. 8, classify the meetings involving boss x and trusted people and meetings involving people who occupied lowest level of the mafia hierarchy).
Regarding Claim 3,
Cavallaro taught wherein the original network is selected from the group comprising an actual network or another synthetic network (Pg. 2, Sicilian Mafia networks).
Regarding Claim 4,
Cavallaro-Cavallaro-2 taught wherein the generating at least one synthetic random network corresponds to generating a set of synthetic random networks that are statistically similar (Pg. 9, the Degree Distribution Analysis has been conducted in order to discover an appropriate artificial network that would virtually mirror the real-world criminal graphs topology under scrutiny). The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 5,
Cavallaro taught further comprising generating, by a data anonymization module, the anonymized input data (Pgs. 7~8, “Dataset collection”, boss denoted as x to preserve anonymity).
Regarding Claim 6,
Cavallaro taught wherein the anonymized input data further comprises incorrect data related to the original network (Pg. 19, eavesdropped individuals had no ties with the Mafia syndicate but are acquainted with some Mafia syndicate members and they had conversations with them. Therefore, these individuals have never attended any meeting and are excluded from the Meetings network).
Regarding Claim 7,
Cavallaro taught wherein the list of nodes comprises a plurality of node records, each node record comprising a unique node identifier and a management hierarchy indicator, the list of edges comprises a plurality of edge records, each edge record comprising a starting node identifier, an ending node identifier, and an edge weight, and the list of groups comprises at least one group record, each group record comprising a list of node identifiers corresponding to members of the group (Pgs. 15~16, Table 2).
Regarding Claim 8,
Cavallaro-Cavallaro-2 taught further comprising assigning, by the group structure identification module, a randomized weight to each weighted edge using at least one of a weighted random graph technique and/or a Bernoulli weighted random network technique (Pg. 2, weighted graph G; Pg. 3, weight distribution; Pg. 10). The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 9,
Cavallaro-Cavallaro-2 taught wherein the generating at least one synthetic random network corresponds to an extension of a Stochastic block model (Pg. 2, weighted graph G; Pg. 3, Weight distribution; Pg. 10). The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 10,
Cavallaro taught further comprising assigning, by the group structure identification module, a management role to a selected node (Pg. 9, some nodes represent the leaders or “bosses”).
Regarding Claims 11~20, the claim is similar in scope to claims 1~10 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443