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 Statements received on 8/13/2025 and 4/10/2026 have been accepted and the references cited within are carefully considered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more than the judicial exception.
With the 2019 revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 SMEG”), it discusses a multi-step analysis that determines subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C 101. In first step of the analysis for this application, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
For this case, claims 1-5 and 11-15 are directed towards an electronic device which is an article of manufacture with claims 6-10 and 16-18 directed towards a method. Therefore, all claims fall within the four statutory categories.
For step 2A, prong one, it states whether the claims recite a judicial exception (the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) per 2019 SMEG. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea with processing string data (obtain, divide, insert, apply, and transmit based on these actions).Thus, in various steps in the claims, e.g., obtain a string, divide, insert, and apply an encryption algorithm to the string, and take action based on result(see all independent claims 1,6,11, and 16) which are categorized as a “mental process,” and “mathematical concepts,” for abstract ideas inside of prong one of step 2A of 2019 SMEG because these limitations are collecting information, processing it, analyzing, and taking action based on the outcome while reciting generic computer components and functions. The dependent claims do not add much to the data processing but rather further define particular elements that are part of the process highlighted in the independent claims.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of 2019 SMEG, the additional elements of the claims such as memory, processor, etc., are merely use a computer device as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the additional elements of the claims such as a device with module, memory, and processor performs the steps or functions cited above to carry out the abstract idea. The use of computer elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it requires no more than a computer performing some functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer nor do they have an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are tied back to an abstract idea. Also, independent claim 1, and 11 states “one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to execute the instructions,” in which it is applied with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) on top of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). For the dependent claims, they do not add much to the data processing but rather further define particular elements that are part of the process highlighted in the independent claims.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when analyzed under step 2B of 2019 SMEG. As discussed earlier above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device with a module, memory, or processor to perform obtain, divide, insert, and apply responding steps that do no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the use of additional elements does no more than employ the computer to implement the abstract idea. Using a computer or processor to implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin (US20210141922A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Yin teaches an electronic device comprising: a communication module comprising communication circuitry; memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication module and the memory, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively (“a memory, configured to store a computer program; a processor, configured to execute the computer program to implement the privacy data reporting method according to any one of the first aspect or the implementations of the first aspect,” Paragraph 49-50), is configured to execute the instructions and to cause the electronic device to: obtain a character string; (“obtains to-be-reported data; divides the to-be-reported data into front string data and rear string data based on a preset step,” Paragraph 8) obtain first character string blocks by dividing the obtained character string into designated character string units; (“divides the to-be-reported data into front string data and rear string data based on a preset step, where a length of the front string data is an integer multiple of the preset step,” Paragraph 8) obtain second character string blocks by inserting connection information between the first character string blocks into each of the first character string blocks; (“the terminal device randomly selects a hash function hk from the hash functions to calculate the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2.For example, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula:hk1=hk(p1); and hk2=hk(p2∥hk1),” Paragraph 144-145) apply a local differential privacy algorithm for each of the second character string blocks; (“terminal device scrambles the first hash value corresponding to the front string data, to generate the scrambled front string data, and scrambles the second hash value corresponding to the rear string data, to generate the scrambled rear string data… the preset scrambling algorithm is a local differential privacy algorithm,” Paragraph 151-152) and transmit character string data including the second character string blocks, to which the local differential privacy algorithm has been applied, to outside through the communication module (“terminal device uses the obtained scrambled front string data and scrambled rear string data as the privacy data corresponding to the to-be-reported data, and sends the privacy data to the server, to implement reporting of the privacy data,” Paragraph 154).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Yin teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising an input module, comprising circuitry, configured to receive the character string input to the electronic device (“terminal device obtains to-be-reported data,” Abstract).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Yin teaches the device of claim 1 obtaining first character string blocks by dividing a length of the obtained character string by a designated character string unit length (“obtaining to-be-reported data; dividing the to-be-reported data into front string data and rear string data, wherein a length of the front string data is an integer multiple of the preset step…to generate privacy data,” Claim 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Yin teaches the device of claim 1 obtaining the second character string blocks by adding, as a tag, a hash value corresponding to a previous character string block to each of the first character string blocks. (“terminal device determines, based on the preset hash function, a second hash value of data formed by the first hash value and the rear string data. In an exemplary embodiment, the terminal device randomly selects a hash function hk from the hash functions to calculate the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2. For example, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula: hk1=hk(p1); and hk2=hk(p2∥hk1). Alternatively, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula:hk1=hk(H(p1)); and hk2=hk(p2∥H(p1)),” Paragraph 143-146).
Regarding claims 5, and 10, Yin teaches the device of claim 1 obtaining the second character string blocks by adding, as a tag, a hash value corresponding to a subsequent character string block to each of the first character string blocks. (“terminal device determines, based on the preset hash function, a second hash value of data formed by the first hash value and the rear string data. In an exemplary embodiment, the terminal device randomly selects a hash function hk from the hash functions to calculate the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2. For example, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula: hk1=hk(p1); and hk2=hk(p2∥hk1). Alternatively, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula: hk1=hk(H(p1)); and hk2=hk(p2∥H(p1)),” Paragraph 143-146).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Yin teaches An electronic device comprising: a communication module comprising communication circuitry; memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry; wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively (“a memory, configured to store a computer program; a processor, configured to execute the computer program to implement the privacy data reporting method according to any one of the first aspect or the implementations of the first aspect,” Paragraph 49-50), is configured to execute the instructions and to cause the electronic device to: receive character string data including second character string blocks, to which a local differential privacy algorithm has been applied, from an external electronic device through the communication module (“terminal device uses the obtained scrambled front string data and scrambled rear string data as the privacy data corresponding to the to-be-reported data, and sends the privacy data to the server, to implement reporting of the privacy data,” Paragraph 154); obtain the second character string blocks by performing, for the character string data, an inverse calculation using noise statistics based on the local differential privacy algorithm (“the terminal device randomly selects a hash function hk from the hash functions to calculate the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2.For example, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula:hk1=hk(p1); and hk2=hk(p2∥hk1),” Paragraph 144-145); obtain first character string blocks and connection information between the first character string blocks from the obtained second character string blocks; (“divides the to-be-reported data into front string data and rear string data based on a preset step, where a length of the front string data is an integer multiple of the preset step,” Paragraph 8) and obtain a character string (“obtains to-be-reported data; divides the to-be-reported data into front string data and rear string data based on a preset step,” Paragraph 8), based on the first character string blocks and the connection information between the first character string blocks.
Regarding claim 12, Yin teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the memory is configured to store a program comprising the instructions, which when executed, are used to obtain the character string from the character string data. (“a division module, configured to divide the to-be-reported data into front string data and rear string data based on a preset step, where a length of the front string data is an integer multiple of the preset step, and the rear string data is data in the to-be-reported data other than the front string data,” Paragraph 40).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Yin teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to: identify the first character string blocks and a tag value included in each of the obtained second character string blocks, and obtain the first character string blocks and connection information between the first character string blocks using the first character string blocks and the tag value (“terminal device determines, based on the preset hash function, a second hash value of data formed by the first hash value and the rear string data. In an exemplary embodiment, the terminal device randomly selects a hash function hk from the hash functions to calculate the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2. For example, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula: hk1=hk(p1); and hk2=hk(p2∥hk1). Alternatively, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula:hk1=hk(H(p1)); and hk2=hk(p2∥H(p1)),” Paragraph 143-146).
Regarding claim 15, Yin teaches the device of claim 13 wherein the tag value comprises a hash value corresponding to a previous character string block or a subsequent character string block. (“terminal device determines, based on the preset hash function, a second hash value of data formed by the first hash value and the rear string data. In an exemplary embodiment, the terminal device randomly selects a hash function hk from the hash functions to calculate the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2. For example, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula: hk1=hk(p1); and hk2=hk(p2∥hk1). Alternatively, the first hash value hk1 and the second hash value hk2 are calculated according to the following formula: hk1=hk(H(p1)); and hk2=hk(p2∥H(p1)),” Paragraph 143-146).
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.
Claims 14, and 18 are rejected under U.S.C 103 under Yin in view of Diamond (CA2665594A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yin teaches the electronic device of claim 11 as cited earlier. Yin does not teach the string having a keyword, message, or URL input. However, Diamon teaches the character string includes a search keyword, a message, or an URL input (“each step comprises one participant receiving a message from another participant, performing computations with the message to generate data to be stored; and with other stored data as input, storing the result, and computing and sending a message to another participant,” Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Diamond’s teachings into Yin as a way to make sure that the message that is getting across from one device to another is secured in a way that improves prohibiting threats.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 14 and thus, is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY W CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-0502. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m -5:30 p.m 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
HENRY W. CHEUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 2433
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights