DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2026-02-12 has been entered and fully considered.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2026-02-12, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2026-02-12, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 2026-02-12, with respect to the claim amendments overcoming the cited prior art references of the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and of claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection – as necessitated by amendment – is made in view of newly cited prior art.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “a processing unit configured to decrypt”, “a processing unit configured to … train the algorithm”, and “a processing unit configured to … profiling feature representations” in claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification is unclear as to the corresponding structure or acts described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Analysis - 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.
The Examiner notes that the only hardware structure of claims 10-18 is the improper 112(f) invocation of “a processing unit”. The Examiner notes that if claim is amended or otherwise interpreted to avoid a 112(f) invocation without adding an element that must be construed as computing hardware, then the claim will be directed towards software, per se, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of processor and database includes software per se embodiments, and thus the claims would be subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection for failing step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 1 recites the limitation “profiling feature representations for the data set by sampling activation layers of the AI model and training a second AI model to match the activation layer to the data set”, and the limitation does not appear to be adequately supported by the written description such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, i.e. the claim contains “new matter”.
The Examiner notes that the closest support for the claim amendment appears to be the disclosure that one “example of a profiling methodology would be to take the activations of the certain AI model layers for samples in both the training and test set, and see if another model can be trained to recognize which activations came from which dataset” (Specification [0086] as filed). Although the specification discloses both “layers” and “activations of the certain AI model layers”, the specification does not recognize that particular model layers are “activation layers”, nor does the specification support sampling of a particular layer in general (which encompasses sampling something other than activations from the layer) such as claimed.
Further, although the specification discloses “see if another model can be trained to recognize which activations came from which dataset” (Specification [0086] as filed), the specification does not disclose how the “another model” is trained, nor does it disclose that such attempted training is “to match the activation layer to the data set” such as claimed. Instead, the specification at best describes attempted training “to recognize which activations came from which dataset”, which does not disclose that the training specifically targets the “activation layer” nor that it is matching the layer to a data set.
Thus, the Examiner finds that new claim limitation is not adequately supported by the specification as filed.
Claim 10 is rejected under a similar rationale. 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 rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation “the activation layer”, and the limitation is either an ambiguous reference to a particular one of the “activation layers” or there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is rejected under a similar rationale. 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 rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 10 recites the limitation “the method comprising”, and 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 rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, with regard to claim 10, claim elements “a processing unit configured to decrypt”, “a processing unit configured to … train the algorithm”, and “a processing unit configured to … profiling feature representations” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). In particular, the Specification does not explicitly disclose what structure performs the claimed function(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, 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 functions 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 functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, 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 functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, 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 functions. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200234198-A1, hereinafter “Feng”) in view of David et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200320400-A1, hereinafter “David”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Feng discloses a computerized method for training an algorithm in a zero-trust environment, the method comprising:
providing an encrypted algorithm to a sequestered computing node located in a data steward’s infrastructure {paras. 0067-0070: “each data provider … uploads the encrypted training data to the machine learning controller”, which includes “training parameters … involved in the machine learning algorithm”}.
providing an encrypted data set to the sequestered computing node from the data steward {paras. 0064-0067: “training data uploaded by the terminal is acquired, in which the training data is … encrypted”}.
receiving keys from a core management system {para. 0067: “each terminal transmits its encryption key to the key manager through the trusted communication link in the trusted execution environment”}.
decrypting the data set and the algorithm {para. 0068: “the encrypted training data of each data provider is decrypted by the data fusion manager according to the encryption key of each data provider”}.
training the algorithm using the data set within the sequestered computing node {para. 0071: “the fused training data is trained in the trusted execution environment according to the training parameters”}, wherein the algorithm is an artificial intelligence (AI) model with a plurality of neural layers {para. 0072: “algorithm may be any one of … the neural network algorithm”}.
Although Feng teaches a machine learning training method, Feng does not explicitly disclose profiling feature representations for the data set by sampling activation layers; however, David discloses:
profiling feature representations for the data set by sampling activation layers of the AI model and training a second AI model to match the activation layer to the data set {para. 0009: a “new model may be trained with the random probe training dataset so that the new model generates substantially the same corresponding output data in response to said input data to mimic the pre-trained target model”}.
Feng and David are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of training machine learning models. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Feng and David before him or her, to modify/develop the model training of Feng’s system to utilize mimicking a pre-trained target model. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., enables training to match a desirable model even without access to the original training set. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the model training in Feng’s system with mimicking a pre-trained target model to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Feng discloses encrypting training assets in the sequestered computing node {para. 0074: “the machine learning controller may encrypt, in the trusted execution environment, the machine learning model”}.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Feng discloses combining training assets from more than one date steward into a federated training model {paras. 0068-0069: “fused training data is obtained by fusing the decrypted training data” from “each data provider”}.
With respect to claims 10, 12, and 16, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claims 1, 3, and 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 10, 12, and 16; therefore, claims 10, 12, and 16 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claims 1, 3, and 7.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200234198-A1, hereinafter “Feng”) in view of David et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200320400-A1, hereinafter “David”) and Gilbertson et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210256429-A1, hereinafter “Gilbertson”).
With respect to dependent claim 2, although Feng teaches data stewards, Feng does not explicitly disclose the data steward is a healthcare organization; however, Gilbertson discloses wherein the data steward is a healthcare organization {para. 0058: “Examples of model provider agents include computer systems associated with medical service provider institutions”}.
Feng-David and Gilbertson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of federated machine learning. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Feng-David and Gilbertson before him or her, to modify/develop the data providers and output model of Feng-David’s system to include healthcare organizations and utilize profile features. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., enables more understanding of the model out and increases the customer base. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the data providers and output model in Feng-David’s system with healthcare organizations and profile features to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Gilbertson discloses profiling feature representations for the training assets {para. 0074: “a model provider demographic profile whose corresponding profiled attribute value ranges have been defined relatively narrower to capture a feature-defined subset of the model provider agents”}.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Feng discloses outputting the encrypted training assets and the profiled feature representations to the core management system {para. 0074: “the machine learning controller may encrypt, in the trusted execution environment, the machine learning model by calling the encryption key of at least one target terminal in the key manager, and then distributes the encrypted model to a corresponding target terminal”}.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Feng discloses validating the training assets {para. 0079: “the terminal executes remote authentication of the trusted execution environment”}.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Gilbertson discloses wherein the at least one sequestered computing node of the zero-trust computing environment is within an infrastructure of the at least one data steward {paras. 0021 & 0073-0075: “local model provider nodes” of “medical institutions”}.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Gilbertson discloses wherein the data assets include protected health information {para. 0064: “a predicted health-related outcome of a particular patient having particular patient features”}.
With respect to claims 11, 13-15, and 17-18, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11, 13-15, and 17-18; therefore, claims 11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491