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 22-41 have been examined. Claims 1-21 are cancelled by preliminary amendment filed on 7/24/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/24/23 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comment
The claims recite steps of transmitting preferences, transmitting query, and receiving analysis data from a data processing system are implemented by a client device. The data processing using transaction data and data handling preferences are performed by another data processing device (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the process to generate summarized version of transaction data performed by another entity is considered non-functional descriptive material with respect to the claimed client system/method). Therefore, limitations not performed by the claimed system/method are given little/no weight in the examination process.
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 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to system and method of providing and receiving data without significantly more.
Step 1 for determining patent eligibility:
Claims 22 is directed to system. Claim 33 is directed to a method Thus, claims 22-41 fall within one of the four statutory categories. Therefore, the analysis moves to step 2A.
Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 22 and 33, the claims are directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “transmitting first data handling preferences,” “transmitting a query,” “receiving summarized version of a transaction data analysis.” Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to process of organizing human activity as requesting and receiving information based on evaluation of rules. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e., processor, memory, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving summarized version of transaction data, first encryption protocol, second encryption protocol, allowable operation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic data request and retrieval process in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic to request and receive data as routinely used in database operations. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 23-32 and 33-41; claims 23-32 and 33-41 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that dependent claims recite steps that are not performed by the claimed device/method, which is considered non-functional descriptive material with respect to the claimed device/method. Therefore, claims 23-32 and 34-41 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganuma et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0308580 (hereinafter Naganuma) in view of Francis et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0327296 (hereinafter Francis).
As per claim 22, Naganuma discloses a client system for use in database operations on data associated with multiple parties, the client system comprising:
a memory (Naganuma: Fig. 2: memory); and
one or more processors for executing instructions stored in the memory (Naganuma: Fig. 2: CPU)) to:
transmit, to a data processing system, first data handling preferences associated with first transaction data stored in a database (Naganuma: [0008]: user terminal transmits searchable encryption matching function/first data handling preferences associated with transaction data; [0035]: encrypted transaction data stored at database to be aggregated and analyzed; Fig. 5 and [0051]: user terminal generates encrypted data and transmits to database server);
transmit, to the data processing system, a query associated with an attribute of the first transaction data (Naganuma: [0008]: user terminal transmits encrypted searchable query; [0053]-[0054]: user transmits query to request the database server to perform an aggregate analysis using specific attributes); and
receive, from the data processing system, a summarized version of a transaction data analysis (Naganuma: [0008]: database server retrieves data/summarized version of data based on encrypted search query by using the searchable encryption matching function associated with the transaction data), wherein the transaction data analysis is based on:
the attribute of the first transaction data (Naganuma: [0054]-[0055]: male, product 1, etc., are searchable attributes of transaction data).
Naganuma discloses that encrypted transaction data stored on database are inaccessible to anyone except client device that holds corresponding key (Naganuma: [0039]). Naganuma does not explicitly disclose an allowable operation determined by the data processing system according to the first data handling preferences and second data handling preferences associated with the second transaction data, wherein the allowable operation is performed on the first transaction data and the second transaction data; and wherein the summarized version of the transaction data analysis excludes the second transaction data. However, Francis teaches or at least suggests the method of allowing customer data to be aggregated and analyzed while preserving privacy of data based on customer’s data sharing preferences (Francis: [0014]-[0018]: generating statistical analysis/summary data using anonymized customer data, i.e. customer data inaccessible to client system; [0036]: customer can decide preference on data sharing). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to generate statistical information based on anonymized transaction data because Naganuma and Francis both disclose secure database operations using privacy-preserving queries. The motivation to combine would be to perform analysis of customer transactions without compromising privacy.
Examiner’s note: the summarized version of analyzed transaction data is considered non-functional descriptive material. The steps taken by data processing system to generate the summarized version of transaction data are not recited in the claims that change function of the claimed client device. Description of the processes taken by processing system is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis when the claim is directed toward the client device. More specifically, the steps implemented by client device merely focuses on transmitting preference and receiving processed data from another device, instead of the data operations performed based on the transmitted preferences. See MPEP2111.05.
As per claim 23, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 22. Naganuma further discloses wherein the first data handling preferences comprise at least one of a first operation preference or a first encryption protocol (Naganuma: [0008]: user device specifies searchable encryption function).
As per claim 24, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the allowable operation is performed with the first encryption protocol (Naganuma: [0008]: database server performs retrieval process based on searchable encryption matching function).
As per claim 25, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the second data handling preferences comprise at least one of a second operation preference or a second encryption protocol (Francis: [0036]). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 22.
As per claim 26, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 25. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the allowable operation is performed with the encryption protocol and the second encryption protocol (Naganuma: [0008]).
As per claim 27, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the first operation preference includes at least one of an allowed join operation or an allowed retrieval operation (Naganuma: [0008]: perform retrieval process based on handling preference specified by user device, i.e. searchable encryption function; Francis: [0036])). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 22.
As per claim 28, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 22. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the summarized version of the transaction data analysis comprises aggregated statistics (Francis: [0014]-[0018]: statistical information without revealing customer data). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 22.
As per claim 29, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 22. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the summarized version of the transaction data analysis excludes the first transaction data (Francis: [0014]-[0018]: statistical information without revealing customer data). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 22.
As per claim 30, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23. Naganuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first data handling preferences comprises Yao's algorithm. However, Yao’s algorithm or other homomorphic encryption algorithms are well known in the art for privacy-preserving database operations.
As per claim 31, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 27. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the allowable operation comprises the allowed join operation and the first encryption protocol (Naganuma: [0008]: user terminal transmits encrypted searchable query; [0053]-[0054]: user transmits query to request the database server to perform an aggregate analysis using specific attributes).
As per claim 32, Naganuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 31. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the first encryption protocol is a homomorphic-like method or Yao's algorithm (Naganuma: [0071]).
As per claim 33, Naganuma discloses a method for use in database operations on data associated with multiple parties, the method comprising:
providing, by a first user to a data processor, first data handling preferences associated with first transaction data stored in a database (Naganuma: [0008]: user terminal transmits searchable encryption matching function/first data handling preferences associated with transaction data; [0035]: encrypted transaction data stored at database to be aggregated and analyzed; Fig. 5 and [0051]: user terminal generates encrypted data and transmits to database server);
submitting, by the first user to the data processor, a query associated with an attribute of the first transaction data (Naganuma: [0008]: user terminal transmits encrypted searchable query; [0053]-[0054]: user transmits query to request the database server to perform an aggregate analysis using specific attributes); and
receiving, by the first user from the data processor, a summarized version of a transaction data analysis (Naganuma: [0008]: database server retrieves data/summarized version of data based on encrypted search query by using the searchable encryption matching function associated with the transaction data).
Naganuma discloses that encrypted transaction data stored on database are inaccessible to anyone except client device that holds corresponding key (Naganuma: [0039]). Naganuma does not explicitly disclose sensitive data elements associated with the first transaction data and second transaction data, wherein the second transaction data is stored in the database, the second transaction data inaccessible to the first user; and an allowable operation determined by the data processor according to the first data handling preferences and second data handling preferences associated with the second transaction data, wherein the allowable operation is performed on the sensitive data elements; and wherein the summarized version of the transaction data analysis comprises results of the transaction data analysis without reporting sensitive data elements associated with the second transaction data. However, Francis teaches or at least suggests the method of generating statistical information by allowing customer data to be aggregated and analyzed while preserving privacy of data based on customer’s data sharing preferences (Francis: [0014]-[0018]: generating statistical analysis/summary data using anonymized customer data, i.e. customer data inaccessible to client system; [0036]: customer can decide preference on data sharing on personal/sensitive information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to generate statistical information based on anonymized transaction data because Naganuma and Francis both disclose secure database operations using privacy-preserving queries. The motivation to combine would be to perform analysis of customer transactions without compromising privacy based on user provided privacy settings.
Examiner’s note: the summarized version of analyzed transaction data is considered non-functional descriptive material. The steps taken by data processor to generate the summarized version of transaction data are not recited in the claims that change function of the claimed method (i.e. providing preferences, submitting query, and receiving summarized version of transaction data). Description of the processes taken by data processor is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis when the claim is directed toward the method performed by first user. More specifically, the steps implemented by the first user merely focuses on transmitting preferences and receiving processed data from another device, instead of the data operations performed based on the transmitted preferences. See MPEP2111.05.
As per claim 34, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 33. Naganuma as modified further discloses the method comprising providing, by the first user to the data processor, first data handling preferences associated with first transaction data stored in the database, wherein the first data handling preferences comprise at least one of a first operation preference or a first encryption protocol to be implemented on the first transaction data (Naganuma: [0008]: user device specifies searchable encryption function).
As per claim 35, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 34. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the allowable operation is performed with the first encryption protocol (Naganuma: [0008]; [0053]-[0054]).
As per claim 36, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 34. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the second data handling preferences comprise at least one of a second operation preference or a second encryption protocol to be implemented on the second transaction data (Francis: [0036]: user preferences on data sharing preferences). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 33.
As per claim 37, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 33. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein the second data handling preference was provided by a second user (Francis: [0036]: user preferences on data sharing preferences). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 33.
As per claim 38, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 37. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein an identity of the second user is unknown to the first user (Francis: [0014]-[0018]: database operation based on anonymized data). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 33.
As per claim 39, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 34. Naganuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein providing, by the first user to the data processor, first data handling preferences comprises selecting the first data handling preferences from a list of data handling preferences provided by the data processor. However, privacy-preserving database operation using homomorphic encryption algorithms are well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select known algorithms to preserve data privacy.
As per claim 40, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 39. Naganuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the list of data handling preferences comprises Yao's algorithm and a homomorphic-like method. However, privacy-preserving database operation using homomorphic encryption algorithms are well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select known algorithms to preserve data privacy for database storage.
As per claim 41, Naganuma as modified discloses the method of claim 33. Naganuma as modified further discloses wherein providing, by the first user to the data processor, first data handling preferences comprises supplying, by the first user to the data processor, an encryption method previously unavailable to the data processor (Naganuma: [0008]: transmitting searchable encryption function to database server).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Payton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180131507 discloses homomorphic database operations of securely querying a shared homomorphically encrypted data repository and perform cross-table homomorphic joins.
Mori eta al. U.S. Pub. No. 20130246813, discloses database encryption method comprising application response unit that determines whether or not encryption is necessary for database operation command, and if encryption is necessary, selects encryption algorithm corresponding to data and/or metadata, and perform necessary operations associated with the data.
Arasu et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20140281512 discloses secure query processing over encrypted data.
Spalka et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20140237231 discloses method for retrieval of encrypted data items.
Brown U.S. Pub. No. 20100036884 discloses correlation engine for generating anonymous correlation between publication-restricted data and personal attribute data.
Bae et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20090245518 discloses secure communications in computer cluster systems.
Waller U.S. Pub. No. 20070250904 discloses privacy protection system.
Felsher U.S. Pub. No. 20130159021 discloses information record infrastructure system.
Sack et al. U.S. Pat. No. 8732856 discloses cross-domain security for data vault.
Sack et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20080010233 discloses mandatory access control label security.
Dettinger et al. U.S. Pat. No. 7698441 discloses intelligent use of user data to pre-emptively prevent execution of a query violating access controls.
Seifert U.S. Pub. No. 20100257372 discloses integrated file level cryptographical access control.
Lietz et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20150263859 discloses method for accommodating communications channels using different secure communications protocols.
Kliewe U.S. Pub. No. 20100312785 discloses servicing query with access path security in relational database management system.
Rubert et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6366915 discloses method for efficiently retrieving information from multiple databases.
Wong U.S. Pub. No. 20090024566 discloses method for facilitating distributed processing of database operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431