DETAILED ACTION
Application No. 19/101,925 filed on 02/07/2025 has been examined. In this Office Action, claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 appear to be directed to two different statutory classes and are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph (as being indefinite).
In other words these claims are directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 and MPEP 2173.05(p).
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-3, 10-18 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Claims 1, 17:
At Step 1:
The claims are directed to “a system”, "a method" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
The limitation of “generate a first set of scoring model coefficients based on sensitive data accessible to the respective nodes”, as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea) and also as a mathematical calculation (mathematical concepts abstract idea) — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I which says that “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation …”. No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
The limitation of “broadcast the first set of scoring model coefficients to rest of the nodes”, as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea) and also as a mathematical calculation (mathematical concepts abstract idea) — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I which says that “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) …”. No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
The limitation of “generate a federated scoring model based on the received contributory intermediate statistics and its respective first set of scoring model coefficients”, as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea) and also as a mathematical calculation (mathematical concepts abstract idea) — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I which says that “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) …”. No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“ at least one processor and a memory, “program code is executable by the respective processor” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application and/or is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP §2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“a plurality of nodes, a communication network enabling communication between the plurality of nodes”, is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“ receive contributory intermediate statistics from the rest of the nodes” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“ a plurality of nodes, a communication network enabling communication between the plurality of nodes” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
-“receive contributory intermediate statistics from the rest of the nodes” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims 2-3, 10-16, 18 have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the above-mentioned groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muth et al (US 12316610 B1) in view of Mu et al (US 2024/0023082 A1).
As per claim 1, Muth teaches a system for federated scoring, the system comprising: a plurality of nodes, a communication network enabling communication between the plurality of nodes, each node comprising at least one processor and a memory, the memory of each node comprising sensitive data and program code, the sensitive data comprises a plurality of records (col.58, lines 59-67 and col.68-69, lines 65-67, lines 1-19, e.g., a message is sent to a smart contract to record a transaction, the message is sent to each node that maintains a replica of the blockchain. Each node can execute the computer code of the smart contract to implement the transaction and col.66, lines 41-46, e.g., allows individuals and organizations/nodes to easily pool, share, transact, and re-use their most sensitive, regulated and proprietary resources, and transform them into precision personalized services and process optimization networks); wherein the program code is executable by the respective processor of each node of the plurality of nodes to (col.58, lines 59-67 and col.68-69, lines 65-67, lines 1-19, e.g., all nodes each maintain a replica of a blockchain, then the computer code is executed at each of the nodes):
Muth does not explicitly teach generate a first set of scoring model coefficients based on sensitive data accessible to the respective nodes; broadcast the first set of scoring model coefficients to rest of the nodes; and wherein at least one of the nodes is configured to: receive contributory intermediate statistics from the rest of the nodes; and generate a federated scoring model based on the received contributory intermediate statistics and its respective first set of scoring model coefficients.
However, Mu teaches generate a first set of scoring model coefficients based on sensitive data accessible to the respective nodes ([0229], e.g., updates the weight coefficient of each UE in the federated averaging based on whether a handover occurs to the UE and the statistical distribution characteristic of the local dataset of each UE); broadcast the first set of scoring model coefficients to rest of the nodes (Fig.8, elements S803 and S804, e.g., the weight coefficient of the UE in the federated average learning is calculated based on the probability distribution difference between the local dataset of the UE and the global dataset and the base station performs the federated averaging to obtain an updated result of the global learning model, and feeds the updated result back to the user); and wherein at least one of the nodes is configured to ([0229], e.g., updates the weight coefficient of each UE in the federated averaging based on whether a handover occurs to the UE and the statistical distribution characteristic of the local dataset of each UE): receive contributory intermediate statistics from the rest of the nodes ([0051], e.g., obtaining statistical information of a distribution difference between the local dataset and a global dataset for each of the at least one UE); and generate a federated scoring model based on the received contributory intermediate statistics and its respective first set of scoring model coefficients ([0079]-[0093]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mu with the teachings of Muth in order to enabling a system for determining, based on statistical information of a distribution difference between the local dataset of the target UE and a global dataset of the base station, a weight coefficient of the target UE in efficient manner (Mu).
As per claim 2, wherein each node is configured to generate a node specific scoring model based on the first set of scoring model coefficients ([0079]-[0093], Mu).
As per claim 3, wherein the system further comprises a central server, wherein the central server is configured to evaluate each of the node specific scoring models and the federated scoring model based on model parsimony statistics ([0079]-[0093], Mu).
As per claim 10, wherein the scoring models are implemented using any one of: linear classification models, logistic regression models, clinical decision support models (col.12, lines 49-62, Muth).
As per claim 11, wherein the each of the plurality of nodes is configured to transmit its node specific scoring model and scoring model performance data to the central server ([0079]-[0093], Mu).
As per claim 12, wherein the central server is configured to receive the federated model from at least one of the nodes ([0040],[0365], Mu).
As per claim 13, wherein the central server is configured to transmit the federated model to at least a subset of the plurality of nodes ([0040], Mu).
As per claim 14, wherein the variables comprise one or more continuous data variables, and each of the nodes is further configured to transform the continuous data variables into discrete variables ([0047], [0059], [0276], Mu).
As per claim 15, wherein at least one of the nodes is configured to process new clinical data using the federated model to generate a score ([0079]-[0093], Mu).
As per claim 16, wherein the contributory intermediate statistics are computed by each respective node based on the sensitive data accessible to the respective nodes (Fig.5, Fig.35, Muth).
Regarding claims 17-18, claims 17-18 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 above.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any wav. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5-9 dependent from claim 4 and also objected as allowable subject matter.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in form PTO-892, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166