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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) because the views are not consecutively numbered starting with 1. See figures 4A and 4A (continued). They should be labelled 4A, 4B, and the current figure 4B should be relabeled as figure 4C . If applicant amends the drawings to correct this problem, Applicant should amend the specification accordingly to refer to the new numbering.
The drawings were received on 08/03/2026. These drawings are not acceptable, because they do not fully fix the objection for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Examiner is interpreting the marks on Figures 1B and 3B as having no meaning. If Applicant believes differently, they should explain what the meaning of the marks is.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.74 because the specification was not updated to use the new figure numbers as shown in the replacement sheets.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., “On the Capacity of Secure Distributed Matrix Multiplication”, hereinafter Chang, in view of Lastovetsky et al., “Two-Dimensional Matrix Partitioning for Parallel Computing on Heterogeneous Processors Based on Their Functional Performance Models”, hereinafter Lastovetsky. System claims 7-11 will be addressed before method claims 1-5 and media claims 12-17.
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses a system comprising one or more computers (Figure 1a); and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Figure 1a), the operations comprising: obtaining, by one or more computers, a first matrix data structure (Figure 1a); segmenting, by one or more computers, the obtained matrix data structure into a set of M different matrix data structure portions, wherein M is an integer number greater than 1 (Equation 8); for each of the respective sets of K matrix data structure sub-portions: generating, by one or more computers, an obfuscation matrix having the same dimensions as each of the K matrix data structure sub-portions (Equation 10, random matrix K1); and generating, by one or more computers, an obfuscated representation of each respective set of K matrix data structure sub-portions that includes (i) the K matrix data structure sub-portions and (ii) the obfuscation matrix (Equation 10); and transmitting, by one or more computers, data representing each of N obfuscated representation of the (K) matrix data structure sub-portions of the respective sets of M matrix data structure portions to a different computer for processing (Figure 1a).
Chang does not disclose a second segmentation step. Lastovetsky discloses segmenting, by one or more computers, each of the different M matrix data structure portions into respective sets of K matrix data structure sub-portions, where K is an integer number greater than 1 (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chang to add a second segmentation step disclosed by Lastovetsky because the second segmentation step lowers execution time by several orders of magnitude compared to single step parallel matrix multiplication (Page 121).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses the system disclosed in claim 7, further comprising receiving, by one or more computers, result data that includes a resultant matrix from each of the different computers, wherein each resultant matrix includes a product of (a) a different matrix and (b) an obfuscated representation of one of the M matrix data structure sub-portions (Figure 1a); and decoding, by one or more computers, the result data, wherein decoding the result data comprises identifying, by one or more computers and for each resultant matrix, a particular resultant matrix that is a product of the different matrix and one of the K matrix data structures (Equation 11).
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses the system disclosed in claim 7, wherein generating, by one or more computers, an obfuscated representation of each respective set of K matrix data structure sub-portions that includes (i) the K matrix data structure portions and (ii) the obfuscation matrix comprises generating, by one or more computers, an expression that corresponds to a polynomial having at least one of the K matrix data structure sub-portions as a coefficient and an obfuscation matrix as coefficients (Equation 10).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses the system disclosed in claim 9, the operations further comprising receiving, by one or more computers, a set of result data from each of the different computers, wherein each set of result data includes data representing an expression that corresponds to a product of (a) a different matrix and (b) the generated expression (Equation 11); and decoding, by one or more computers, the result data, wherein decoding the result data comprises: determining, by one or more computers, that the generated expression in each set of result data has unknown parameters (Equation 12, A1B); and identifying, by one or more computers and based on the generated expressions and unknown parameters for each expression, a particular resultant matrix that is a product of the different matrix and one of the K matrix data structures (Equation 11).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses the system of claim 7, wherein transmitting, by one or more computers, data representing each of the N obfuscated representation of the (K) matrix data structure sub- portions of the respective sets of M matrix data structure portions to a different computer for processing comprises: for each particular obfuscated representation of the N obfuscated representations: transmitting the particular obfuscated representation to a different remote computer that is remote from the one or more computers using one or more networks (Figure 1a).
Regarding claims 1-5, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 7-11, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 13-17, they are media claims corresponding to apparatus claims 7-11, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, while Chang’s approach is preferred, Chang also recognizes the problem of collusion when it comes to the obfuscation process, as explained in Section III. One having ordinary skill in the art of secure distributed matrix multiplication (SDMM) reading about collusion would recognize that if security is important, they would allocate more resources to support for each of the respective sets of K matrix data structure sub-portions, the obfuscation matrix having the same dimensions as each of the K matrix data structure sub-portions is different from another obfuscation matrix for another set of the K matrix data structure sub-portions, the obfuscation matrix having the same dimensions as each of the K matrix data structure sub-portions.
The brute force implementation would be to obfuscate every M times K portions of the partitioning of the original matrix with a different, random value, which would make collusion impossible, even if every server were to collude. Based on the possibility of collusion, one way of preventing collusion is to use more obfuscation matrices up to and including obfuscating every matrix differently. Therefore, obfuscating each K matrix data structure sub-portion is an obvious variation of secure distributed matrix multiplication, as disclosed by Chang.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang and Lastovetsky as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13, respectively, above, and further in view of Smith et al., “Anatomy of High-Performance Many-Threaded Matrix Multiplication”, hereinafter Smith. System claim 12 will be addressed before method claim 6 and media claim 18.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of does not disclose that each core of the machines that receive the obfuscated matrix receives a segment. Smith discloses the data representing each of the N obfuscated representation of the (K) matrix data structure sub- portions of the respective sets of M matrix data structure portions to a different computer for processing comprises: for each particular obfuscated representation of the N obfuscated representations: transmitting the particular obfuscated representation to a different processing core of one the one or more computers (Section III C, Paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Chang and Lastovetsky to use the matrix multiplication algorithm disclosed by Smith because multicore matrix multiplication is several times faster than single core performance (Section V D, Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 6, it is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 12, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is a media claim corresponding to apparatus claim 12, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see p.14, paragraph 2, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claims 13-18; and p. 17, paragraphs 1-2, filed 08/03/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s drawing amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive for the objection under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), but are not persuasive for the objection under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) as stated above. The 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) objection has been withdrawn, and the 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) objection has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 1-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Chang does not teach or suggest “generating, by one or more computers, an obfuscated representation of each respective set of K matrix data structure sub-portions that includes (i) the K matrix data structure sub-portions and (ii) the obfuscation matrix” (Remarks, p. 14-15), specifically, that “Chang does not describe isolating the sets of K sub-portions to generate a separate obfuscated representation for each respective set” (p. 15, emphasis original).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in claim 1 states that the obfuscation matrices have to be generated independently of each other. Claim 1 only states “generating, by one or more computers, an obfuscated representation of each respective set”. Claim 1 does not state that the obfuscated representation cannot be identical for each K. Compare this to newly added claim 19, which explicitly states that each obfuscation matrix is different from other obfuscation matrices.
Applicant asserts that Lastovetsky also does not teach or suggest “generating, by one or more computers, an obfuscated representation of each respective set of K matrix data structure sub-portions that includes (i) the K matrix data structure sub-portions and (ii) the obfuscation matrix” (p. 15-16), specifically that “the obfuscation matrices are generated independently of other sets to limit the degree of the polynomial” (p. 16, emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reason as described above with regards to Chang.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-17 as being rendered obvious by Chang and Lastovetsky as well as claims 6 and 18 as being rendered obvious by Chang, Lastovetsky and Smith is maintained.
Regarding claim 19, it is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as being rendered obvious by Chang and Lastovetsky as described above.
Discussion of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mital et al., “Secure Distributed Matrix Computation with Discrete Fourier Transform”, use a Fourier transformation to securely encode the matrices being multiplied in a way that is secure as long as every server does not collude.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Strapp whose telephone number is (571)272-9343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/M.S./
Matthew StrappExaminer, Art Unit 2182
571-272-9343
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights