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
1. The office action is in response to the communication filed 3/28/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities
Line 12 of the claim should be amended to --and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 21-26 would be placed in condition for allowance if the objection of claim 21 and the double patenting rejection have been overcome.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 and 26-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,378.
Instant Application 19/094,688
Patent No. US 12,314,378
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder;
generating, by the password encoder based on the first password, a first key;
combining parameters of an encoder model with the first key to result in a modified encoder;
combining parameters of a decoder model operating in tandem with the encoder based with a second key to result in a modified decoder;
receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment;
encoding, by the modified encoder, the first data to generate an embedding;
decoding, by the modified decoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data; and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process;
wherein inputting the first data into the encoder and the decoder prior to modification results in a representation of the first data.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a second password by the password encoder; generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, the second key.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first password is different than the second password.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the first password is same as the second password.
5. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a second password by a second password encoder; generating, by the second password encoder based on the second password, the second key.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data is a first image and the second data is a second, different image.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first audio file and the second data comprises a second, different audio file.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first video file and the second data comprises a second, different video file.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first text file and the second data comprises a second, different text file.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the first key is different than the second key.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the first key is same as the second key.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the modified parameters for each of the encoder model and the decoder model comprises weights and/or biases.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the modified model parameters of the encoder model and the decoder model comprise weights and biases.
14. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder,
the password encoder comprising one or more machine learning models;
generating, by the password encoder based on the first password, a first key;
modifying model parameters of an encoder machine learning model based on a first key to result in a modified encoder;
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising: receiving a second password by the password encoder;
generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, a second key
modifying model parameters of an encoder machine learning model based on a first key to result in a modified encoder;
the decoder comprising one or more machine learning models;
receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment;
encoding, by the modified encoder, the first data to generate an embedding;
decoding, by a decoder operating in tandem with the modified encoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data, and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process;
wherein inputting the first data into the encoder and the decoder prior to modification results in a representation of the first data.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the first key is different than the second key.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein the first key is same as the second key.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising: modifying parameters of a decoder model for the decoder based on the second key to result in a modified decoder; wherein the decoding is performed by the modified decoder.
27. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type.
21. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder, the password encoder comprising one or more machine learning models;
generating, by the password encoder based on the first password, a first key;
modifying weights and biases of a decoder operating in tandem with an encoder based on the first key to result in a modified decoder, the decoder comprising one or more machine learning models, the encoder being different from the password encoder and comprising one or more machine learning models;
26. The method of claim 21 further comprising: receiving a second password by a second password encoder; generating, by the second password encoder based on the second password, a second key.
receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment;
encoding, by the encoder, the first data to generate an embedding;
decoding, by the modified decoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data; and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process; wherein inputting the first data into the decoder prior to modification results in a representation of the first data.
24. The method of claim 23, wherein the first key is different than the second key.
25. The method of claim 23, wherein the first key is same as the second key.
22. The method of claim 21 further comprising: receiving a second password by the password encoder; generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, a second key.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder;
generating, by the password encoder using the first password, a first key;
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the parameters of the encoder model are modified by combining the first key with parameters of the encoder model and the parameters of the decoder model are modified by combining the first key with parameters of the decoder model.
modifying parameters of an encoder model using the first key and subsequently training the encoder model using such modified parameters to result in a modified encoder, the encoder model comprising a first neural network;
modifying parameters of a decoder model operating in tandem with the encoder using a second key and subsequently training the decoder model using such modified parameters to result in a modified decoder, the decoder model comprising a second neural network;
receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment;
encoding, by the modified encoder, the first data to generate an embedding corresponding to the second data;
decoding, by the modified decoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data; and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process;
wherein inputting the first data into the encoder model and the decoder model prior to modification results in the encoder model encoding an embedding corresponding to the first data which is decoded by the decoder model to result in a representation of the first data.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a second password by the password encoder; generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, the second key.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first password is different than the second password.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the first password is same as the second password.
5. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a second password by a second password encoder; generating, by the second password encoder based on the second password, the second key.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data is a first image and the second data is a second, different image.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first audio file and the second data comprises a second, different audio file.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first video file and the second data comprises a second, different video file.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first text file and the second data comprises a second, different text file.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the first key is different than the second key.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the first key is same as the second key.
21. The method of claim 18, wherein the modified model parameters of the encoder model comprise weights and biases.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the modified parameters for each of the encoder model and the decoder model comprises weights and/or biases for the respective neural networks.
18. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder;
generating, by the password encoder using the first password, a first key;
modifying model parameters of an encoder model using the first key and subsequently training the encoder model using such modified parameters to result in a modified encoder, the encoder model comprising a neural network;
receiving a second password by the password encoder;
generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, a second key;
modifying parameters of a decoder model for the decoder based on the second key to result in a modified decoder, the decoder model comprising a neural network;
wherein the decoding is performed by the modified decoder;
receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment;
encoding, by the modified encoder, the first data to generate an embedding;
decoding, by a decoder operating in tandem with the modified encoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data; and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process;
wherein inputting the first data into the encoder and the decoder prior to modification results in the encoder model encoding an embedding corresponding to the first data which is decoded by the decoder model to result in a representation of the first data.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the first key is different than the second key.
20. The method of claim 18, wherein the first key is same as the second key.
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising: modifying model parameters of a decoder model for the decoder based on the second key to result in a modified decoder, the decoder model comprising a neural network; wherein the decoding is performed by the modified decoder.
26. The method of claim 18, wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type.
27. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder;
generating, by the password encoder using the first password, a first key;
modifying weights and biases of a decoder operating in tandem with an encoder using the first key and subsequently training the decoder using the modified weights and biases to result in a modified decoder, the decoder comprising a neural network;
receiving a second password by the password encoder; generating, by the password encoder using the second password, a second key;
modifying weights and biases of the encoder using the second key to result in a modified encoder, the encoder comprising a neural network; wherein the encoding is performed by the modified encoder;
receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment;
encoding, by the encoder, the first data to generate an embedding;
decoding, by the modified decoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data; and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process; wherein inputting the output of the encoder into the decoder prior to modification results in a representation of the first data.
28. The method of claim 27, wherein the first key is different than the second key.
29. The method of claim 27, wherein the first key is same as the second key.
30. The method of claim 27 further comprising: receiving a second password by a second password encoder; generating, by the second password encoder based on the second password, a second key.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette (US 2003/0072446) in view of Anson (US 2021/0152351).
Regarding claim 1, Jaquette teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder (par [0035], lines 9-13, which discloses an encoder receiving a password from a user);
generating, by the password encoder based on the first password, a first key (par [0036], lines 10-14, which discloses encoder logic generating a MRU key from the password entered by the user);
combining parameters of an encoder model with the first key to result in a modified encoder (fig. 2a, par [0023], and par [0040], lines 7-13, which disclose an encoder receiving a MRU key, 10’, for adjusting security of the data output by the encoder);
combining parameters of a decoder model operating in tandem with the encoder based with a second key to result in a modified decoder (fig. 2b, par [0024], lines 8-13 which discloses decoder logic, communicatively coupled with the encoder logic, receiving a scrambled MRU key, 10, to generate adjusted decoded output data);
encoding, by the modified encoder, the first data to generate an embedding (par [0024], which discloses the encoder encoding the input data to output compressed and encrypted data);
decoding, by the modified decoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data (par [0034], lines 5-21, “decoded output data”); and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process (fig. 5, ‘156-‘158, “output decoded data”);
wherein inputting the first data into the encoder and the decoder prior to modification results in a representation of the first data (par [0027], lines 7-11, “produce the original input data”).
Jaquette does not explicitly teach receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment.
However, Chapman et al further teaches receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment (par [0012], lines 6-10, which discloses storing output data where the data is encrypted and hidden from all parties beside an authenticated user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson et al within the concept illustrated by Jaquette in order to improve upon ensuring prevention of unauthorized access to secure user content by utilizing symmetric and asymmetric keys for hashing secret data corresponding to user’s hidden data (as disclosed in par [0021] of Anson et al) because this method requires a potential intruder to perform several layers of authentication values, making it virtually impossible for bad actors to access the user’s secure, hidden data.
Regarding claim 2, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach receiving a second password by the password encoder; generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, the second key.
However, Anson further teaches receiving a second password by the password encoder (par [0018], lines 14-17, “second password”);
generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, the second key (par [0018], lines 5-17, “provide a cipher key”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first password is different than the second password.
However, Anson further teaches wherein the first password is different than the second password (par [0018], lines 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jaquette further teaches wherein the first password is same as the second password (par [0036], lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 5, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach receiving a second password by a second password encoder; generating, by the second password encoder based on the second password, the second key.
However, Anson further teaches receiving a second password by a second password encoder (par [0018], lines 10-17… “additional passwords”); generating, by the second password encoder based on the second password, the second key (par [0018], lines 10-17, “second password could be required to produce Hash2”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first data comprises a first audio file and the second data comprises a second, different audio file.
However, Anson further teaches wherein the first data comprises a first audio file (par [0102], lines 6-7, “encrypt…audio”) and the second data comprises a second, different audio file (par [0102], lines 6-7, “audio…other data types”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first data comprises a first video file and the second data comprises a second, different video file.
However, Anson further teaches wherein the first data comprises a first video file (par [0102], lines 6-7, “encrypt…video”) and the second data comprises a second, different video file (par [0102], lines 6-7, “video…other data types”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first data comprises a text file and the second data comprises a second, different text file.
However, Anson further teaches wherein the first data comprises a first text file (par [0042], which discloses a data file identified using the second hash value) and the second data comprises a second, different text file (par [0102], lines 6-7, “files…other data types”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type.
However, Anson further teaches wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type (par [0120], lines 10-11, which discloses specifying the original file type) and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type (fig. 12, ‘241/’243 & par [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jaquette further teaches wherein first key is different than the second key (par [0015], “keys used to encode data”).
Regarding claim 12, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jaquette further teaches first key is the same as the second key (fig. 2a-2b & par [0015], which disclose that the scrambled MRU key is derived from the original MRU key).
Regarding claim 27, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type.
However, Anson further teaches wherein the first data comprises a file of a first type (par [0120], lines 10-11, which discloses specifying the original file type) and the second data comprises a file of a second, different type (fig. 12, ‘241/’243 & par [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
8. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette (US 2003/0072446) in view of Anson (US 2021/0152351), further in view of Chapman et al (US 2022/0335160).
Regarding claim 6, Jaquette and Anson do not explicitly teach wherein the first data is a first image and the second data is a second, different image.
However, Chapman et al teaches wherein the first data is a first image (fig. 1, ‘102 & fig. 1, “source image”), and the second data is a second, different image (fig. 10, ‘1002, “training data image set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Chapman et al within the teachings of Jaquette and Anson in order to improve machine learning training performance by normalizing data values across current data (as disclosed in par [0038], lines 1-6 of Chapman et al) because this feature provides a normalized data distribution to a computation layer in a machine learning environment.
Regarding claim 13, Jaquette and Anson do not explicitly teach wherein the modified parameters for each of the encoder model and the decoder model comprises weights and/or biases.
However, Chapman et al teaches wherein the modified parameters for each of the encoder model and the decoder model comprises weights and/or biases (par [0043], lines 5-8, “weights and biases of the neural network…” & “set of weights may encompass all of the parameters…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Chapman et al within the teachings of Jaquette and Anson according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 6.
9. Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette (US 2003/0072446) in view of Anson (US 2021/0152351), further in view of Stehle et al (US 2025/0055673).
Regarding claim 14, Jaquette teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first password by a password encoder (par [0035], lines 9-13, which discloses an encoder receiving a password from a user);
generating, by the password encoder based on the first password, a first key (par [0036], lines 10-14, which discloses encoder logic generating a MRU key from the password entered by the user);
encoding, by the modified encoder, the first data to generate an embedding (par [0024], which discloses the encoder encoding the input data to output compressed and encrypted data);
decoding, by a decoder operating in tandem with the modified encoder, the embedding to result in a representation of the second data (par [0034], lines 5-21, “decoded output data”); and
providing the representation of the second data to a consuming application or process (fig. 5, ‘156-‘158, “output decoded data”);
wherein inputting the first data into the encoder and the decoder prior to modification results in a representation of the first data (par [0027], lines 7-11, “produce the original input data”).
Jaquette does not explicitly teach receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment.
However, Anson further teaches receiving first data encapsulating second data in a hidden compartment (par [0012], lines 6-10, which discloses storing output data where the data is encrypted and hidden from all parties beside an authenticated user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette in order to improve upon ensuring prevention of unauthorized access to secure user content by utilizing symmetric and asymmetric keys for hashing secret data corresponding to user’s hidden data (as disclosed in par [0021] of Anson) because this method requires a potential intruder to perform several layers of authentication values, making it virtually impossible for bad actors to access the user’s secure, hidden data.
Jaquette and do not explicitly teach the password encoder comprising one or more machine learning models; modifying model parameters of an encoder model based on a first key to result in a modified encoder; and the decoder comprising one or more machine learning models.
However, Stehle et al teaches the password encoder comprising one or more machine learning models (par [0129], which discloses machine learning models implemented for password encryption);
modifying model parameters of an encoder model based on a first key to result in a modified encoder (fig. 6, ‘s610-‘s630 & par [0129], which discloses training the machine learning model used for said password encryption, which is performed via a calculation key); and
the decoder comprising one or more machine learning models (claim 5 & claim 6, lines 1-6, which discloses the device used to decrypt the calculation results using machine learning model for performing ciphertext on the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Stehel et al within the teachings of Jaquette and Anson in order to improve machine learning-based authentication & protection by training machine learning models to diagnose client-related passwords (as disclosed in par [0016], lines 1-6 of Stehel et al) because this implementation further ensures password protection when analyzing and performing ciphertext on input passwords before the password is used for authentication by authentication requesting parties.
Regarding claim 15, Jaquette doesn’t explicitly teach receiving a second password by the password encoder; generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, a second key.
However, Anson further teaches receiving a second password by the password encoder (par [0018], lines 14-17); generating, by the password encoder based on the second password, a second key (par [0018], lines 5-17, “provide a cipher key”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anson within the concept illustrated by Jaquette according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 14.
Jaquette further teaches modifying parameters of a decoder model for the decoder based on the second key to result in a modified decoder (par [0024], lines 8-13 which discloses decoder logic receiving a scrambled MRU key to generate decoded output data);
wherein decoding is performed by the modified decoder, (par [0034], lines 5-21, “decoded output data”).
Regarding claim 17, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 14.
Jaquette further teaches wherein the first key is different than the second key (par [0015], “keys used to encode data”).
Regarding claim 18, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 14.
Jaquette further teaches wherein the first key is the same as the second key (fig. 2a-2b & par [0015], which disclose that the scrambled MRU key is derived from the original MRU key).
Regarding claim 19, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 14.
Jaquette further teaches wherein the modified model parameters of the encoder model and the decoder model comprise weights and biases (par [0024], lines 11-13 and par [0025], lines 1-10, which disclose using a plurality of different compression algorithms for each instance of decoder and encoder logic being implemented).
Regarding claim 20, Jaquette and Anson teach the limitations of claim 14.
Jaquette further teaches modifying model parameters of a decoder model for the decoder based on the second key to result in a modified decoder (par [0024], lines 8-13 which discloses decoder logic receiving a scrambled MRU key to generate decoded output data);
wherein decoding is performed by the modified decoder, (par [0034], lines 5-21, “decoded output data”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
20260615
Prosecution Insights