DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 6-13 and 19-26 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 application regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the adversarial task” in
line 4 as to which task the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “a data representation for testing” in line 25, as to whether this data representation is the same data representation recited earlier in the claimed limitation. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an anonymized data representation” in lines 27-28, as to whether this anonymized data representation is the same anonymized data representation recited earlier in the claimed limitations. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an obfuscated data” in line 28, as to whether this obfuscated data is the same obfuscated data recited earlier in the claimed limitations. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “privacy-related information” in lines 28-29, as to whether this privacy-related information is the same privacy-related information recited earlier in the claimed limitations. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “a task result for testing” in line 4, as to whether this task result is the same task result recited in independent claim 7. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the adversarial task” in line 4, as to which task the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the adversarial task” in line 4, as to which task the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “a data representation for testing” in lines 26-27, as to whether this data representation is the same data representation recited earlier in the claimed limitation. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an anonymized data representation” in line 29, as to whether this anonymized data representation is the same anonymized data representation recited earlier in the claimed limitations. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an obfuscated data” in lines 29-30, as to whether this obfuscated data is the same obfuscated data recited earlier in the claimed limitations. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “privacy-related information” in line 30, as to whether this privacy-related information is the same privacy-related information recited earlier in the claimed limitations. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “a task result for testing” in line 5, as to whether this task result is the same task result recited in the independent claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the adversarial task” in line 4, as to which task the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 9-12 and 22-25, the claims are rejected because they are dependent to the previous rejected claim(s).
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499