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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the subject matter of this application is not admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Chase et al (U.S. Patent application Publication No. 2022/0269796 A1) in view of Tateno (U.S. Patent Application publication No. 2015/0269735 A1).
As to claim 1, Chase et al teach a method of assessing inputs fed to an AI Model in an AI system, said AI system including the AI Model (M), a processing unit and at least a blocker module, said AI Model being configured to classify an input into at least two classes including a first class and a second class, and said at least two classes being segregated by a classification boundary (figure 1, par. 0029, figure 3, pars. 0036-0038, figure 13, par. 0139, providing input data to an AI model and classifying the input data), the method comprising: modifying the input using a pre-defined scaling factor to generate a secondary input way of the processing unit; adapting the value of the scaling factor until the secondary input generated lies in the second class by way of the processing unit; performing a binary search between the secondary inputs to find a peripheral input closest to the classification boundary by way of the processing unit (figure 3, pars. 0036-0038 & 0068, figure 13, pars. 0139-0145, modifying the input data for the processing unit).
However, Chase et al do not teach that calculating a Jacobian gradient of input lying in the first class with respect to the classification boundary by way of the processing unit; and calculating a distance between the input and the peripheral input closest to the classification boundary by way of the processing unit to assess the input fed to the AI Model.
Tateno teaches that calculating a Jacobian gradient of input lying in the first class with respect to the classification boundary by way of the processing unit; and calculating a distance between the input and the peripheral input closest to the classification boundary by way of the processing unit to assess the input fed to the AI Model (figures 2-3, pars. 0062. 0076, 0081, calculating information to modify the input data and forward to the processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tateno as stated above with the method of Chase et al for calculating information to modify the input data because it would have improved efficiency and utilization of the AI Model by providing updated and efficient input data to the AI Model.
As to claim 2, Tateno teaches that the assessing the input of the Al Model comprises calculating the distance between the input and the corresponding peripheral input for a batch for inputs to determine an adversarial batch of inputs (figures 3-4, pars. 0076-0078 & 0081-0085).
As to claim 3, Chase et al teach that the input is assessed as an attack vector if the distance of the input from the classification boundary is below a pre-defined threshold (figure 1, pars. 0029-0030, figure 7, pars. 0065-0068, and 0143-0145).
As to claim 4, Chase et al teach that the assessment information is sent to the blocker module (par. 0047, claim 4).
As to claims 5-8, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-4 above, since claims 5-8 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-4, and claims 5-8 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-4.
As to claim 9, Chase et al teach that the blocker module is configured to at least restrict a user of the AI system in dependance of the assessment received (pars. 0043-0047).
Additional Reference
The examiner as of general interest cites the following reference.
a. Zhang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0156563 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights