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 is the initial office action that has been issued in response to patent application, 18/856,559, filed on 07/20/2021. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been considered below. Claim 1 is an independent claims.
Priority
The application a 371 of PCT/EP2023/059546 filed 04/12/2023, and claims foreign priority of Germany EP 22167899.8 filed on 04/12/2022.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/11/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS' s) submitted on 10/21/2024 are in compliance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement.
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; 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 this 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 this Office action.
Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
This application includes a claim limitation that uses the word “means” and is therefore being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically: “means for carrying out the method of claim 1” in claim 10.
This limitation recites a function (“carrying out the method of claim 1”) without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the recited function. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is construed to cover only the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend for this limitation to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:(1) amend the claim to recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function; or(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation 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 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 3 and 10 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 3 recites the limitation “the second metadata”. Claim 3 is unclear and vague. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “means for carrying out the method of claim 1”. Claim 10 is unclear and vague. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. therefore, they are rejected based on the same rational as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10-12 do not further limit the claims they depend on. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding Claim 1:
Padgett discloses:
A computer implemented method for providing data in accordance with an access restriction, the method comprising: receiving a request of a user to access first data, the first data being subject to the access restriction, wherein the access restriction applies to the user(Padgett, [0118], the prompts are received from one or more user devices as the first generative AI model is made available and accessible over one or more computing networks. Access to the first generative AI model may be open or may be restricted to authorized users in some cases.);
determining first data characteristics associated with the first data(Padgett, [0022], and comparing and finding may include comparing the product or service data with goods and services data associated with trademarks in the one or more trademark databases.);
determining second data characteristics associated with second data not being subject to the access restriction(Padgett, [0108], the training data set may include a large number of existing corporate logos. The training data set may include items protected by one or more forms of intellectual property and/or PII, and unavailable for free and unrestricted use, or available only under the terms of one or more user licenses);
Padgett does not disclose:
determining whether a similarity of the first and second data characteristics meets a predetermined threshold
and automatically providing, in particular outputting or indicating, the second data to the user in response to the receipt of the user request if the similarity meets the predetermined threshold
Hassanzadeh discloses:
determining whether a similarity of the first and second data characteristics meets a predetermined threshold(Hassanzadeh, [0011], uses one or more of the similarity functions contained in that library to identify pairs of token sets that meet a predetermined similarity threshold based on a comparison of the tokens in those token sets.);
and automatically providing, in particular outputting or indicating, the second data to the user in response to the receipt of the user request if the similarity meets the predetermined threshold(Hassanzadeh, [0011], Each linkage point can be used to link data records in each of two data sets that are associated with the same real-world entity or related real-world entities as determined through a comparison of the token sets associated with attributes in each one of the two data records. Therefore, the linkage point discovery module 108 is in communication with a similarity function library 109, and uses one or more of the similarity functions contained in that library to identify pairs of token sets that meet a predetermined similarity threshold based on a comparison of the tokens in those token sets.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Padgett’s similarity-based generative AI output filtering system by enhancing Padgett’s systems to determine whether a similarity between first data characteristics to automatically provide, output, or indicate the second data to the user when the similarity meets the predetermined threshold, as taught by Hassanzadeh, in order to enable similarity-based substitution of alternative data when access to requested data is restricted.
The motivation is to ensure that users are automatically presented with relevant alternative data that is sufficiently similar to the requested restricted data, while maintaining access restrictions and preventing unauthorized disclosure, thereby improving system usability, efficiency, and security.
Regarding Claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses wherein the first and/or second data characteristics are determined based on first and second previously stored metadata associated with the first and second data, respectively(Hassanzadeh, [0012], All of these modules can run on one or more computing systems, e.g., a distributed or cloud based computing system, and can include other components 112 to support the running of the linkage point identification modules. These other components include one or more data bases to store data required or generated during the linkage point identification process, a task scheduler and an information retrieval index. An interface 111 such as a visual interface, a graphical user interface or a Web-based interface is provided in communication with the linkage point identification system to communicate and to visualize the results of the data records linkage evaluation and linkage point identification.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Padgett’s similarity-based generative AI output filtering system by enhancing Padgett’s systems to determine first and second data characteristics based on previously stored metadata associated with first data subject to an access restriction and second data not subject to the access restriction, as taught by Hassanzadeh, in order to enable efficient similarity determination between restricted and unrestricted data using precomputed metadata representations.
The motivation is to ensure that similarity comparisons can be performed efficiently and consistently using stored metadata rather than raw data, thereby reducing computational overhead, improving response time to user requests, and enabling scalable provision of relevant alternative data while maintaining access restrictions and preventing unauthorized disclosure.
Regarding Claim 3:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses prior to the determination of the second data, adding the second data to a plurality of stored data(Hassanzadeh, [0008], The datasets can be of different types and formats, e.g., comma separated value datasets, relational databases stored in relational database management systems,);
in response to the addition of the second data, automatically determining and/or storing second metadata indicative of the second data characteristics(Hassanzadeh, [0019], data record in each pair of data records is contained in one of a given pair of datasets, i.e., in different datasets. In addition, each pair of data records is associated with a common entity having matching attributes in the given pair of datasets. These common entities can be the same entity or related entities.);
and determining the second data characteristics based on the second metadata(Hassanzadeh, [0011], A linkage point discovery module 108 is provided that can identify linkage points between data records across datasets. Each linkage point can be used to link data records in each of two data sets that are associated with the same real-world entity or related real-world entities as determined through a comparison of the token sets associated with attributes in each one of the two data records.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Padgett’s similarity-based generative AI output filtering system by enhancing Padgett’s systems to add second data to a plurality of stored data and, in response to the addition of the second data, automatically determine and store metadata indicative of second data characteristics, and to determine the second data characteristics based on the stored metadata, as taught by Hassanzadeh, in order to enable automated characterization of newly ingested data for subsequent similarity-based comparison. The motivation is to ensure that newly added data can be efficiently and consistently analyzed without manual intervention, allowing similarity determinations to be performed using automatically generated metadata, thereby improving scalability, processing efficiency, and responsiveness of the system while maintaining controlled access to data.
Regarding Claim 4:
The method according to claim 3, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses wherein the automatic determination of the second metadata is performed by a machine learning model(Padgett, [0062], The system 100 includes a generative AI model 102, a similarity-assessment layer 104, and a repository of pre-existing content 106. The generative AI model 102 may be an unsupervised or semi-supervised machine learning algorithm that has been trained using a set of training data content).
Regarding Claim 5:
The method according to claim 1, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses wherein the first and second data characteristics comprises syntax characteristics and/or semantic characteristics of the first and second datasets, respectively(Hassanzadeh, [0004], the attributes in the data sources that can be used to link their records or entities. Traditionally, this is performed by schema matching, where the goal is to identify the schema elements of the input data sources that are semantically related.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Padgett’s similarity-based generative AI output filtering system by enhancing Padgett’s systems to determine first and second data characteristics that comprise syntactic characteristics and/or semantic characteristics of the respective datasets, as taught by Hassanzadeh, in order to enable more accurate similarity determination based on both structural and meaning-based features of the data. The motivation is to ensure that similarity comparisons account for both syntactic structure and semantic content of the data, thereby improving the relevance and accuracy of alternative data provided to users while maintaining access restrictions and preventing disclosure of restricted information.
Regarding Claim 6:
The method according to claim 1, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses further comprising: performing a first process on a third data using the second data; and subsequent to performing the first process, performing a second process on the third data using the first data(Hassanzadeh, [0004], the attributes in the data sources that can be used to link their records or entities. Traditionally, this is performed by schema matching, where the goal is to identify the schema elements of the input data sources that are semantically related. However, the massive growth in the amount of unstructured and semi-structured data in data warehouses and on the Web has created new challenges for this task. With the increasing size and heterogeneity of data sources, the task can no longer be performed manually using simple user interfaces or with specific heuristics that work well only for a certain type of data or domain.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Padgett’s similarity-based generative AI output filtering system by enhancing Padgett’s systems to perform a first process on third data using second data not subject to an access restriction, and, subsequent to performing the first process, to perform a second process on the third data using first data subject to the access restriction, as taught by Hassanzadeh, in order to enable staged data processing that respects access restrictions while still leveraging unrestricted data. The motivation is to ensure that initial processing of data can be performed using unrestricted information to reduce exposure of restricted data, while still allowing restricted data to be applied at a later stage in a controlled manner, thereby improving data security, compliance with access controls, and overall system efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method according to claim 6, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses further comprising: subsequent to performing the second process, restricting access to the third data and/or enabling access to, in particular providing, metadata of the third data(Padgett, [0118], the prompts are received from one or more user devices as the first generative AI model is made available and accessible over one or more computing networks. Access to the first generative AI model may be open or may be restricted to authorized users in some cases.).
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses further comprising: developing, creating or training a machine learning, ML, model using the second data; in response to an input of the user, training the ML model using the first data after the ML model has been developed, created or trained using the second data(Padgett, [0104], The similarity-assessment layer in such a system may include an infringement-assessment MLM that determines the likelihood that an output from the generative AI model would be considered trademark infringement. The MLM may be trained on a training data set that includes examples of trademark infringement and non-infringement, including the allegedly infringing mark and the registered (or unregistered) mark.).
Regarding Claim 9:
The method of claim 8, further comprising: Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses subsequent to training the ML model using the first data, applying the access restriction to the ML model(Padgett, [0118], Access to the first generative AI model may be open or may be restricted to authorized users in some cases.).
Regarding Claim 10:
A data processing apparatus comprising means Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses for carrying out the method of claim 1 (Same rational applied to claim 1 above)
Regarding Claim 11:
An apparatus comprising : Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses a memory configured to store a computer program comprising instructions; and a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the processor, upon executing the instructions, is configured to cause the apparatus to carry out the method of claim 1 (Same rational applied to claim 1 above)
Regarding Claim 12:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, Padgett in view of Hassanzadeh discloses when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1
(Same rational applied to claim 1 above)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYASA SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8 AM TO 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JEFFREY PWU can be reached on (571)272-6789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAYASA A. SHAAWAT/Examiner, Art Unit 2433