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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 under 35 USC § 101, and under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered.
The amendments overcome the 101 rejections, and thus the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn. However, the amendments do not overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 112(b), and the Applicant’s argument with regards to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) is not persuasive.
On pages 22-24 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the Specification clearly associates corresponding processor-implemented operations with each identified component. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments do not clearly indicate if the respective modules are implemented as hardware or software. Paragraph [0108] of the Specification (US-PGPUB) reads: “The functional units and modules of the processor and methods in accordance with the embodiments disclosed herein may be embodied in hardware or software. That is, the claimed processor may be implemented entirely as machine instructions or as a combination of machine instructions and hardware elements.”. Thus, the Examiner re-asserts that the Specification does not provide a define structure of the modules, and the claim language does not clearly indicate if the respective modules are implemented as hardware or software.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Applicant can amend the claim by modifying the claim language to indicate that each module is implemented as software (e.g. “a software implemented graph builder module”), or indicate that each module comprises a hardware processor (e.g. “a graph builder module comprising a hardware processor”).
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: “a graph builder module”, “an answer retrieval module” and “an answer output module” in claim 1.
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 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.
Claim limitation (claim 1) “A system using a privacy-preserving neural graph database for receiving a query from a user and giving an answer to the user in response to the query, comprising: a graph builder module configured to …; an answer retrieval module configured to …; and an answer output module configured to ...” invokes 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. Paragraph [0114] of the Specification discloses the functional units and modules may be embodied in hardware or software without disclosing any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23 are allowed as amended.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art being “Allin” (US 2019/0179723 A1), and “Brunel” (US 2018/0018375 A1). Allin discloses method comprising: obtaining a federated structured query language (SQL) query, generating a query plan for the federated SQL query, the query plan comprising a plurality of data processing operations to be performed by the data processing system including at least a first data processing operation and a second data processing operation; displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) containing a plurality of GUI elements including a first GUI element representing the first data processing operation and a second GUI element representing the second data processing operation; during execution of the federated SQL query, gathering tracking information for the federated SQL query including gathering first tracking information for the first data processing operation and second tracking information for the second data processing operation; and displaying, in the GUI, at least some of the first tracking information in association with the first GUI element and at least some of the second tracking information in association with the second GUI element. Brunel discloses a method for implementation by one or more data processors forming part of at least one computing device, the method comprising: receiving, by a database, a query requesting data in the form of a table in which each row is related to a different node of a hierarchy of nodes, the query specifying a hierarchical window clause and at least one expression containing a window function on a hierarchical window specified by the hierarchical window clause; constructing a directed acyclic graph of at least a portion of the rows in a windowed table based on the hierarchical window clause; obtaining, based on expressions specified by the query, results responsive to the query by accumulating data from the rows across edges of the directed acyclic graph; and providing data comprising at least a portion of the obtained results.
What is missing from the prior art is: a method(s) for receiving a structured query language statement from a user and providing an answer in response to the structured query language statement using a privacy-preserving neural graph database, comprising: receiving a structured query language statement from a user; parsing the structured query language statement into a computational graph comprising a directed acyclic graph, wherein nodes of the computational graph represent sets of entities or numerical values, and directed edges of the computational graph represent projection, intersection, or union operators over the sets of entities or numerical values; iteratively computing a query embedding based on sub-query embeddings by applying respective parameterized projection, intersection, or union operators corresponding to the operators represented by the directed edges; retrieving candidate answer sets using the query embedding by: performing attribute projection and relation projection to extract relevant entities or numerical values from an entity set according to specified relationships and attribute types; performing an intersection operation on multiple sets of entities or numerical values to identify common elements shared among the multiple sets; and performing a union operation on multiple sets of entities or numerical values to identify elements across the multiple sets; classifying candidate answers in the candidate answer sets into a public answer set and a privacy answer set based on whether inference of a candidate answer involves private information, by: classifying an output of a projection operator as a privacy answer when the projection operator is applied to infer a private attribute; for an intersection operation, classifying an answer as a privacy answer when the answer belongs to any privacy answer set input to the intersection operation; and for a union operation, classifying an answer as a privacy answer when the answer belongs to a privacy answer set of a computational subgraph while not belonging to any public answer set of the computational subgraphs; computing, for each candidate answer, a score based on the query embedding and a corresponding entity embedding or attribute embedding; calculating a normalized probability for each candidate answer using a Softmax function; computing a public-answer loss using the public answer set as a computation parameter, the public-answer loss measuring retrieval accuracy of public answers; computing a privacy-answer loss using the privacy answer set as a computation parameter, the privacy-answer loss being used to optimize output information to obfuscate privacy answers; setting relative threshold values for the public-answer loss and the privacy-answer loss, wherein a low threshold is assigned to the public-answer loss, requiring a calculation result of the public-answer loss to be lower than the low threshold, and a high threshold is assigned to the privacy-answer loss, requiring a calculation result of the privacy-answer loss to be higher than the high threshold; comparing the calculation result of the public-answer loss with the low threshold and comparing the calculation result of the privacy-answer loss with the high threshold; and selecting, based on the comparisons, one or more final answers from the candidate answers after privacy-risk classification and scoring to output as the answer in response to the structured query language statement; wherein a final learning objective function for the privacy-preserving neural graph database comprises the public-answer loss and the privacy-answer loss weighted by a privacy coefficient controlling a protection strength of the privacy-preserving neural graph database; wherein, during a training stage, the parameterized projection operator is directly optimized according to a privacy protection learning objective included in the final learning objective function to safeguard sensitive information; and wherein adversarial techniques are introduced during the training stage of the privacy- preserving neural graph database to generate indistinguishable or obfuscated answers when queried with private information, thereby making it more difficult to infer privacy through complex private queries while accurately retrieving non-private answers.
Thus, the prior art of record, when considered individually and in combination, does not teach or suggest the subject matter recited by claims 16 and 19 as a whole, therefore claims 16 and 19 are deemed allowable over the prior art of record. The dependent claims which further limit claims 16 and 19 are also deemed allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm 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 R. 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.
/MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights