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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending per amendment.
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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 6 “framework” may be interpreted as “processor’ not being part of the “framework”. The claim language ambiguity encompasses the processor “in communication” with the AI module may operate within a separate and distinct entity from the AI module. Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the “framework” is software per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification does not define how “assessing vulnerability” or “assess the vulnerability” are performed. Paragraph 0032 of instant PG Pub states “the processor (20) determines percentage and severity of the modified output to assess the vulnerability of the AI system (10)”. However, the recitation of two parameters utilized to “assess the vulnerability” falls short of providing one of ordinary skill—in absence of undue experimentation--with enough detail to make or practice of the claimed invention. That is, there are potential multiple ways to assess vulnerability.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The specification does not provide object criteria defining what constitutes “assessing vulnerability” or “assess the vulnerability”. Paragraph 0032 of instant PG Pub states “the processor (20) determines percentage and severity of the modified output to assess the vulnerability of the AI system (10)”. However, the recitation of two parameters utilized to “assess the vulnerability” falls short of one of ordinary skill knowing when the limitation is met. Examiner cannot determine whether “vulnerability” may mean attack success rate, output deviation, “blocker” module frequency or probability of misclassification of a prompt/input.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pogorelik US 20210319098 [0098] “…hardener 140 could be arranged to mitigate against attack vectors generally referred to as model theft. Model theft is theft of the inference model 122 itself (e.g., extraction, cloning, reverse engineering, model inversion, etc.). Hardener 140 could be arranged to mitigate against model cloning, operation of an extracted model, model inversion, or reverse engineering. For example, hardener 140 could be arranged to mitigate against probing attacks attempting to retrieve information about the training data. As another example, hardener 140 could be arranged to mitigate against attack vectors generally referred to as adversarial inputs. Adversarial inputs are inputs designed to “fool” an inference system or trigger a specific inference based on the input.”
[0199] “One security risk to inference systems is probing. An inference model may be probed or attacked with input perturbations in an effort to identify inputs that may “fool” the system.”;
Matthews US 20210097176 [0033] “…the model modifier 206 adds an adversarial perturbation to the input and inputs the perturbed input into the model modifier 206. The example difference determiner 208 determines the difference (e.g., a Euclidean distance) between the input and the perturbed input at each layer of the trainer classification model 204.”;
Moe US 20200272726;
Lin US 20220405648;
Sinn US 20220100867;
Gu US 20200410335; and
Cmielowski US 20210279336
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights