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
The IDS filed 11/12/2024 was received and considered.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 12, line 21 “bake these” should be replaced with “make these”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11 (claims 12-15 inherit the objected to limitation), lines 3-4, the second recitation of “by a hardware security gate” appears to be redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium storing program code”, which is not defined in the specification and could, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, include a transitory medium (such as a carrier wave, transmission medium, signal, etc.).
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, 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) is/are: “access control unit”, “hardware security gate”, “quality filter unit” (claim 1; claims 2-10 inherit the limitations of claim 1), “external agreement unit” (claim 5), “pre-processing unit” (claims 6, 7), “quality metric unit” (claim 9) and “real-world intake connector” (claim 10).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 15 is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium storing program code, the program code comprising instructions that when executed by a processor carry out the method”. However, the specification does not describe the interrelationship between a processor executing program code stored on a storage medium and actions performed by at least the access control unit (7) and the quality filter unit (8), “wherein the access control unit (7) and the quality filter unit (8) are implemented on an FPGA”, as that the actions of the access control unit (7) and the quality filter unit (8) appear to be programmed into hardware, such that a skilled artisan could have made and used the claimed 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.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 (2-10 inherit the limitation), the limitations “access control unit”, “hardware security gate”, “quality filter unit” (claim 1; claims 2-10 inherit the limitations of claim 1), “external agreement unit” (claim 5), “pre-processing unit” (claims 6, 7), “quality metric unit” (claim 9) and “real-world intake connector” (claim 10) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification: (1) (pp. 15-16) describes controlling access and lists multiple functions of the access control unit “may be configured to notify”, “control access to the FPGA”, “periodically send the platform a request for status”, (2) (pp. 21-22) describes checking “hardware integrity to establish a root of trust”, (3) (pp. 23-24) describes retrieving “one or more criteria and/or functions from the smart contract” and “step, the quality filter unit 8 evaluates the metadata stored in local descriptors of the data according to the one or more criteria while scanning through the data directory”, (4) (p. 16, regarding the limitation “external agreement unit … configured to define and store a smart contract”) describes “wherein the external agreement unit is configured to store a legal agreement, for example a swarm contractual agreement”, (5) (p. 14) describes “the pre-processing unit 4 is configured to retrieve a pointer of a pre-processing pipeline from one or more preregistered pre-processing pipelines from the smart data based on the class of the data, wherein the pre-processing pipeline is implemented to pre-process the data”, (6) (p. 11, p. 24) describes “quality measure within the quality metrics might be a certain number of genes being minimally recognized within the data, e.g. more than 12,000 in any given and included blood sample” and “generate quality metrics of the data based on the metadata of the data” and (7) (pp. 19-20) describes “RWIC is implemented on the FPGA and is configured to retrieve a classification of the practitioner and feeds this information back into the training lifecycle”. However, the specification does not describe specific algorithms used to achieve the claimed functions. Therefore, 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.
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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “preferably” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the language that follows is included in the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the external agreement unit” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, were “agreement unit” was previously recited in line 2.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “in particular” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the language that follows is included in the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “in particular” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the language that follows is included in the scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/017648 A1 to Rodriguez et al. (Rodriguez), in view of US 2023/0100152 A1 to Lal et al. (Lal).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses a device for decentralized machine learning (application circuitry includes hardware accelerators, such as for deep learning, ¶242), the device comprising: an access control unit (7) for controlling an access of a remote device to the device (device attestation function embedded in FPGA, ¶233 to generate a device identifier, ¶233; CDI extends to VM operating on device, ¶126 and can be used to attest to a trusted environment for a workload, ¶205; note that the CDI can be used to allow access to an environment, ¶211), a hardware security gate (9) for checking a hardware integrity of the device (upon boot, the device computes a RoT using DICE, including on an FPGA, ¶193; boot process for the compute platform includes Boot Guard technology to verify and execute the system BIOS/firmware, ¶111 and compute a device secret, ¶114, including using a physical unclonable function (PUF), ¶117, ¶121), wherein the access control unit (7) is implemented on an FPGA (¶233). Rodriguez lacks a quality filter unit (8) for filtering data provided for decentralized machine learning, where the quality filter unit (8) is implemented on an FPGA. However, Lal, in an analogous art (federated learning), teaches that it was known to include a quality filter unit (pre-filter circuitry, ¶61) in FPGA-based (¶24, ¶30) federated learning accelerators to remove noise and identify relevant data for training (¶61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez to include a quality filter unit (8) for filtering data provided for decentralized machine learning, where the quality filter unit (8) is implemented on an FPGA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable the application circuitry, including the hardware accelerator, to filter data, such as to remove noise and identify relevant data for training, as taught by Lal.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is similar in scope to claim 11 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale, where Rodriguez discloses various mediums storing instructions to carry out the actions of the disclosure (¶265).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez discloses wherein the access control unit (7) comprises a physical unclonable function, PUF (physical unclonable function (PUF), ¶117, ¶121), to generate an identifier of the FPGA (compute a device secret, ¶114 based on DICE RoT, ¶¶116-117), wherein the device is configured to use the identifier as an identity verification between the device and a remote device (supports identity and key verification functions and used to measure Attesting Environment, ¶121).
Regarding claim 12, Rodriguez discloses wherein the controlling the access of a remote device to the device by the access control unit (7) comprises: checking a registration status of the device on a platform (compute a device secret, ¶114 based on DICE RoT, ¶¶116-117); receiving an instruction (nonce) from the platform (collected claims are digitally signed (along with a Nonce from the Verifier) or with a timestamp value from an optional Secure Time Root of Trust component and sent to the Verifier, ¶121); and attesting an access right of an identity of the device based on the instruction (identity and key verification functions and used to measure Attesting Environment, ¶121; see also ¶204 “third-party verifiable assertion of a service completion per the SLA may become an important element in these multi-party interactions, such as billing, network monitoring, quality of service (QoS) evaluations, etc.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez and Lal, as applied to claim 1, in view of “Embedded processors on FPGA: Hard-core vs Soft-core” by Kanhiroth et al. (Kanhiroth).
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez, as modified, lacks wherein the access control unit (7), the hardware security gate (9), and the quality filter unit (8) are encapsulated in a hard IP core of the FPGA. However, Kanhiroth teaches that it was known to utilize FPGAs in SoC design, including hard IP cores and soft IP cores, with hard IP cores having advantages including more complex designs and higher speeds (p. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Rodriguez such that the access control unit (7), the hardware security gate (9), and the quality filter unit (8) are encapsulated in a hard IP core of the FPGA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to gain benefits including more complex designs and higher speeds, as taught by Kanhiroth.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez and Lal, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2018/0011130 A1 to Aguayo Gonzalez et al. (Gonzalez).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez, as modified, lacks wherein the hardware security gate (9) is configured to monitor a working condition of the device by monitoring physical attributes of the FPGA, preferably through a differential power analysis, DPA, wherein the hardware security gate is configured to disable an application loaded on the FPGA if an anomaly is detected. However, Gonzalez teaches that it was known to detect anomalies in FPGAs (¶18, ¶20) and assess the integrity of a device (¶21) by determining anomalous behavior based on monitoring side-channel information (¶21), including shutting down the device or resetting the device when an anomaly is detected (¶21; see also ¶24 and ¶43 for further discussion of side-channel information, ¶¶44-47 for signature analysis process and ¶36 for responses to anomaly detection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Rodriguez such that the hardware security gate (9) is configured to monitor a working condition of the device by monitoring physical attributes of the FPGA, preferably through a differential power analysis, DPA, wherein the hardware security gate is configured to disable an application loaded on the FPGA if an anomaly is detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable notification and/or remediation of a potentially compromised device, as taught by Gonzalez.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would likely be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to resolve the claim objections and claim rejections under §101 and §112.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art teaches smart contracts:
US 20250378436 A1 (Lochrane; Taylor William Paul) teaches “architecture enables dynamic workload orchestration where AI-driven resource management agents determine whether a given smart contract is executed at the edge, fog, or cloud layer, based on network latency, jurisdictional rules, or operational urgency” (¶85).
US 20210234668 A1 (MANAMOHAN; SATHYANARAYANAN et al.) teaches “Still other examples include locations that should be targeted such that edge nodes in certain geolocations are targeted. The smart contracts 44 may include rules, which each edge node 10 follows, that direct the nodes to inspect transactions and/or blocks to determine whether it should apply a management operation contained in the transaction and/or block” (¶45).
However, the prior art - individually, or in a reasonable combination – fails to teach wherein the quality filter unit (8) is connected to an agreement unit (11) that is external to the FPGA, wherein the external agreement unit (11) is configured to define and store a smart contract, wherein the quality filter unit (8) is configured to retrieve one or more criteria and/or functions from the smart contract, wherein the one or more criteria and/or functions are used to filter the data provided for decentralized machine learning, in combination with the independent claim as a whole.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art teaches swarm learning:
“Swarm learning for decentralized and confidential clinical machine learning “ (Warnat-Herresthal, Stefanie, et al. ) teaches entering an input for the inference processing (new node enrolls, p. 267); retrieving a trained machine learning model from the platform according to the input (obtains the model, p. 267); conducting the inference processing with the machine learning model (local model training, p. 267).
US 12198073 B2 (Duesterwald; Evelyn et al.) teaches entering the real-world inference result corresponding to the input; and storing the input with the corresponding real-world inference result in a directory (“AI assessor tracks the AI-to-human agreement over time. Namely, by observing the AI assistant-human decision maker interactions (see step 302), the AI assessor can determine how often the (true) human decisions from the human decision maker confirms (or does not confirm) the decision predictions from the AI assistant. To use a data labeling scenario as a non-limiting example, in step 304 the AI assessor can track how often the predicted labels from the AI assistant concur with the labels assigned by the human decision maker on the same data items from interactions between the AI assistant and the human decision maker that have occurred over time”, col. 8 lines 94-60).
However, the prior art - individually, or in a reasonable combination – fails to teach wherein the controlling the access of a remote device to the device by the access control unit (7) comprises: checking a registration status of the device on a platform; receiving an instruction from the platform; and attesting an access right of an identity of the device based on the instruction, wherein the instruction from the platform is an instruction to conduct an inference processing, and the method further comprises: entering an input for the inference processing; retrieving a trained machine learning model from the platform according to the input; conducting the inference processing with the machine learning model; entering the real-world inference result corresponding to the input; and storing the input with the corresponding real-world inference result in a directory, in combination with the independent claim as a whole.
Claims 6-10 and 14 inherit the potentially allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240296344 A1 (Wan; Shuo et al.) teaches filtering: “Further, the terminal device preprocesses the local data, for example, anonymizes a data ID or extracts a data feature, to obtain the local training data, and then sends the local training data to a first network device” (¶127).
CN111401621A (machine translation) (HUANG, An-bu et al.) teaches preprocessing including noise reduction, geometric correction, image enhancement, and image cropping, and the preprocessed local data is saved as the local training data (¶76).
CN114417351A (machine translation) (HE, Peng et al.) teaches “Edge nodes collect data from different local locations, preprocess the data, train local common models on the preprocessed data, and upload the model to the cloud-based training and detection center after model convergence for parameter aggregation. Based on the detection model obtained from the cloud-based training and detection center, the system determines whether there are vulnerabilities in the real-time running system and submits suspected vulnerability information to the cloud-based training and detection center for identification and patching” (¶14).
US 10872149 B1 (Alexander; Scott et al.) teaches anomaly detection using side-channel analysis.
US 11295235 B2 (Guim Bernat; Francesc et al.) teaches filtering training data, including according to a service level agreement (SLA) (Fig. 2).
US 20190332814 A1 (BOS; Joppe Willem et al.) teaches tamper-resistant hardware assisting in learning on edge nodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
February 5, 2026