DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A secure relational algebraic operation system that performs secure computation of a composite of relational algebraic operations on an operation target input table, the secure relational algebraic operation system comprising a plurality of secure computation apparatuses, wherein each secure computation apparatus includes relational algebraic operation circuitry that performs secure computation of the relational algebraic operation on the input table or an intermediate table, and valid row extraction circuitry that generates the intermediate table obtained by extracting a valid row from an operation result of the relational algebraic operation”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps. The “secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “circuitry” and “intermediate table configuration circuitry” are generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A secure computation apparatus that performs secure computation of a composite of relational algebraic operations on an operation target input table, the secure computation apparatus comprising: relational algebraic operation circuitry that performs secure computation of the relational algebraic operation on the input table or an intermediate table; and valid row extraction circuitry that generates the intermediate table obtained by extracting a valid row from an operation result of the relational algebraic operation”.
The limitations of “
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “and valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps. The “a secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “and valid row extraction circuitry” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “and valid row extraction circuitry” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “and valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A secure relational algebraic operation method that is executed by a secure relational algebraic operation system including a plurality of secure computation apparatuses and performs secure computation of a composite of relational algebraic operations on an operation target input table, the secure relational algebraic operation method comprising: performing, via a relational algebraic operation circuitry of each secure computation apparatus, secure computation of the relational algebraic operation on the input table or an intermediate table; and generating, via a valid row extraction circuitry of each secure computation apparatus, the intermediate table obtained by extracting a valid row from an operation result of the relational algebraic operation”.
The limitations of “A secure relational algebraic operation method that is executed by table obtained by extracting a valid row from an operation result of the relational algebraic operation”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “a relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “a valid row extraction circuitry”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “a relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “a valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps. The “secure relational algebraic operation system”, “plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “a relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “a valid row extraction circuitry” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a secure relational algebraic operation system”, “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, “a relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “a valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A secure relational algebraic operation method that is executed by one secure computation apparatus and performs secure computation of a composite of relational algebraic operations on an operation target input table, the secure relational algebraic operation method comprising: performing, via relational algebraic operation circuitry of the secure computation apparatus, secure computation of the relational algebraic operation on the input table or an intermediate table; and generating, via valid row extraction circuitry of the secure computation apparatus, the intermediate table obtained by extracting a valid row from an operation result of the relational algebraic operation”.
The limitations of “A secure relational algebraic operation method that is executed by performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “one secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps. The “one secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “one secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “one secure computation apparatus”, “relational algebraic operation circuitry” and “valid row extraction circuitry” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. . The claim also recites the additional elements of “an operation target input table” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernich et al. (‘Hernich’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11550787) in view of Arasu et al. (‘Arasu’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160306995).
As per claim 1, Hernich teaches
A
relational algebraic operation circuitry that performs query to match rules for materialized view where algebraic form recognizes matching expressions within the query, column 12, lines 42-60, where materialized view reads on input table; column 4, lines 38-65 & figure 2)
and valid row extraction circuitry that generates the intermediate table obtained by extracting a valid row from an operation result of the relational algebraic operation. (operations to produce intermediate results from materialized view used to generate query results, column 12, lines 42-60, where one of skill in the art would know that queries on a table or joined tables necessarily select rows/records or portions of rows/records that are returned as a results, such as a “select” operation in a SQL operation; column 4, lines 38-65 & figure 2)
Hernich does not explicitly indicate “secure”.
However, Arasu discloses “secure” (semantically secure join operator between tables, paragraphs [0045]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernich and Arasu because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of data that is stored on the cloud (see Arasu, background). This gives the user the advantage of being insured that critical information is not available to those without proper authorization.
As per claim 4,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 5,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 6,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 7, Hernich teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium which stores a program for causing a computer to execute each step of the secure relational algebraic operation method according to claim 6. (column 17, lines 1-15; see also rejection of claim 6, above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernich et al. (‘Hernich’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11550787) in view of Arasu et al. (‘Arasu’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160306995) and further in view of Ma et al. (‘Ma’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170060948).
As per claim 2,
Neither Hernich nor Arasu explicitly indicate “wherein the secure relational algebraic operation system performs secure computation of an arbitrary query on the input table by repeating the composition of the relational algebraic operations, and repeatedly executes processing of the relational algebraic operation circuitry and the valid row extraction circuitry until the arbitrary query is completed.”
However, Ma discloses “wherein the secure relational algebraic operation system performs secure computation of an arbitrary query on the input table by repeating the composition of the relational algebraic operations, and repeatedly executes processing of the relational algebraic operation circuitry and the valid row extraction circuitry until the arbitrary query is completed” (algebraic expressions that are iterator-based such as in join or merge operators that scan for reading rows from table, paragraph [0001],[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernich, Arasu and Ma because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing self-contained operators built from a basic set of operators that can be implemented in modern database systems (see Ma, paragraphs [0001],[0015]). This gives the user the advantage of improved functionality during database query execution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, there are outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that must be resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights