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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 9/29/2025, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 5, 9-11 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In remarks applicant argues in substance that:
(a) Applicant argues that cited reference “Le” does not disclose, “obtaining a plurality of execution operators from a first model, wherein the plurality of execution operators comprises a first operator, and the first operator indicates decryption processing logic”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Le explicitly discloses in addition to the rejection cited in section 3 of the office action, that a policy (the “first mode”) defines rules based on attributes. These rules are applied to generate cryptographic operations (execution operators). For example: “A data encryption key used to encrypt data is encrypted using a first asymmetric key and a policy…the policy includes rules that corresponds to attributes”, See paragraphs [0004], [0022]. Le further discloses, the system generates multiple operators (encryption and decryption) from the policy. Thus, the plurality includes at least one operator corresponding to decryption, see paragraphs [0022], [0030].
Le yet again discloses, decryption of a data encryption key: “system and methods for encrypting and decrypting a data encryption key are provided…paragraph [0004]). The decryption operator embodies decryption processing logic, as it governs how the encrypted data encryption key is decrypted based on attributes and rules, (paragraph [0030] and [0035]).
(b) Applicant further argues that cited reference “Le” does not disclose, “executing the first operator comprising decrypting, based on the decryption processing logic, first data corresponding to the first operator to obtain second data”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Le explicitly discloses in addition to the rejection cited in section 3 of the office action, the system decrypts the data encryption key (DEK) using the policy and attributes: “…decrypting the data encryption key based on the policy and the attribute….” See paragraph [0030] and [0035].
Le further goes on to explain /disclose the decrypted DEK (Second data) is then used to decrypt the encrypted data: “….the decrypted data encryption key may then be used to decrypt the encrypted data ….” See paragraph [0035].
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0145200 A1), hereinafter “Le”.
As to claim 1. Le discloses, a method (Le, Abstract), comprising:
obtaining a plurality of execution operators from a first model, wherein the plurality of execution operators comprises a first operator, and the first operator indicates decryption processing logic (Le, [0062], To determine whether secure memory 404 includes private keys 304 that correspond to attributes 402, decryption module 210 may map or compare attributes 402 received from attribute extractor 702 to attributes 402 that are associated with private keys 304); and
sequentially executing the plurality of execution operators based on a hierarchical relationship between the plurality of execution operators (Le, [0063], Once decryption module 210 determines that private key 304A that corresponds to attributes 402A and 402B exists in secure memory 404, decryption module 210 may retrieve private key 304A. Decryption module 210 may then use attributes 402A and 402B and private key 304A to decrypt encrypted data encryption key 122A.), sequentially executing the plurality of execution operators comprising:
executing the first operator comprising decrypting, based on the decryption processing logic (Le, [0069] Using attributes 402C and 402D, decryption module 210 may retrieve private key 304B that corresponds to public key 302B from secure memory 404), first data corresponding to the first operator to obtain second data (Le, [0069], based on attribute, retrieving private key), and executing, based on the second data, one or more execution operators arranged after the first operator (Le, [0069], Decryption module 210 may then use private key 304B and attributes 402C and 402D to decrypt encrypted data encryption key 122B into data encryption key 306A according to policy 502B).
As to claim 2. Le discloses, wherein the second data is: at least one weighted value; at least one execution operator; or the at least one weighted value and the at least one execution operator (Le, [0069], attribute).
As to claim 3. Le discloses, in response to a key returned based on a key obtaining request, decrypting, using the key, the first data to obtain the second data (Le, [0069], if decryption module 210 is unable to decrypt encrypted data encryption key 122B because attributes 402C and 402D do not pass the rules in policy 502B, decryption module 210 may transmit encrypted data encryption key 122B to data storage 114 or another entity (not shown). Alternatively, decryption module 210 may securely transmit data encryption key 306A to data storage 114 that may use data encryption key 306A to decrypt data).
As to claim 4. Le discloses, the first operator indicates an address of storage space in which the first data is located; and executing the first operator comprising decrypting, based on the decryption processing logic (Le, [0069]), the first data corresponding to the first operator to obtain the second data comprises: in response to the execution progressing to the address, decrypting, based on the decryption processing logic, the data stored in the address, to obtain the second data (Le, [0028], data associated with applications 108 and/or 112 may be stored on one or more client devices 104, servers 106, or data storage 114. Data storage 114 may be cloud storage, a database, and/or another type of large scale storage that may be accessible to applications 108 and 112 over network 102.).
As to claim 8. Le discloses the invention as in claim above including, wherein the decryption processing logic is symmetric decryption processing logic or asymmetric decryption processing logic (Le, [0030], keys may be symmetric keys).
As to claim 9 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1above along the additional explanation cited the response to argument section.
As to claim 10. Le discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein data in the first area is:
at least one weighted value of the AI model (le, [0022], the policy includes rules tied to attributes (weighted values): “….the policy includes rules that correspond to attribute….”;
at least one execution operator of the AI model (Le, [0030] and [0035], the system stores operators for cryptographic functions, e.g., decryption: “…decrypting the data encryption key based on the policy and the attribute….”); or
the at least one weighted value of the AI model and the at least one execution operator of the AI model (Le, [0030] and [0035]).
As to claim 11. Le discloses, in response to a key obtaining request from a device processor, performing authentication on the device processor (Le, [0004], [0022] and [0030], the request s a DEK from the system, authentication is performed via policy rules and attributes); and
in response to the authentication succeeding, returning a key to the device processor (Le, [0035], the decrypted DEK is returned to the device processor).
As to claim 12. Le discloses, the key obtaining request comprises an identifier of the first model and an identifier of the device processor (Le, [0022],[0029] and [0030], Key management system 116 may manage one or more encryption keys, decryption keys and one or more cryptographic algorithms that are used for encryption and decryption.); and
performing authentication on the device processor comprises:
performing authentication on the device processor based on the identifier of the first model and the identifier of the device processor (Le, [0022], [0029], [0030], data from applications 108, 112, etc., that is encrypted into ciphertext may be stored in data storage as encrypted data 120 and data encryption keys encrypted into cipher text may be stored as encrypted data encryption keys 122. Decryption keys may decrypt encrypted data 120 into data, or encrypted data encryption keys 122 into keys.).
As to claim 13. Le discloses the invention as in claims above including, wherein encrypting the first area in the AI model comprises:
encrypting the first area using a second operator, wherein the second operator indicates encryption processing logic (Le, [0004] and [0022], the DEK is encrypted and stored securely: “…a data encryption key used to encrypt data is encrypted using a first asymmetric key and a policy…”, The system includes an encryption operator: “…encrypting the data encryption key using the policy and the attribute i.e. second operator and the encryption operator embodies encryption logic: “…encrypting the data encryption key using a first asymmetric key and a policy…” ).
As to claim 14 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 16 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 17 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied above in view of Liu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0096162 A1), hereinafter “Liu”.
As to claim 5. Le discloses the invention as applied above. Le however is silent to disclose explicitly, in response to completing the execution of the plurality of execution operators, deleting the first model, the plurality of execution operators, and the second data.
Liu discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, in response to completing the execution of the plurality of execution operators, deleting the first model, the plurality of execution operators, and the second data (Liu [0017], deleting the memory mapping relationships of the critical data and the critical code in the original EPT according to a memory area in which the critical data is located and a memory area in which the critical code is located, and adding a memory mapping relationship of the trampoline code to the original EPT, to obtain the first EPT.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of “Liu” into those of “Le” to provide, a data protection method includes detecting whether critical code of an application has been called, with the critical code being used to access critical data; switching from a preconfigured first extended page table (EPT) to a preconfigured second EPT according to preset trampoline code corresponding to the critical code when an operating system calls the critical code using the first EPT, wherein memory mapping relationships of the critical data and the critical code are not configured in the first EPT, the memory mapping relationships of the critical data and the critical code are configured in the second EPT, and the critical data and the critical code are separately stored in independent memory areas; and switching from the second EPT back to the first EPT according to the trampoline code after calling and executing the critical code using the second EPT.
As to claim 18 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied above in view of Soler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0066409 A1), hereinafter “Soler”.
As to claim 6. Le discloses the invention as in parent claim above. Le however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the first model is a training model or an inference model.
Soler in the same field of endeavor discloses a similar concept, wherein the first model is a training model or an inference model (Soler, [0014], where the AI function is a specific function block that includes the definition of operations of algorithms, defining an inference path, or the generation of the AI model starting from the determined AI function by a computation graph.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled to incorporate the teachings of “Soler” into those of Le to provide, A method includes determining an artificial intelligence function in an engineering framework system. An inference path is defined for generation of an AI model by a computation graph. An AI function and the inference path are converted into a processing format. The converted AI function is sent and exported to an extraction and extension module of an AI workbench module. The extended computation graph of the inference path is transmitted from the extraction and extension module to an AI framework module.
As to claim 7. The combined system of Le and Soler discloses the invention as in claim above including, wherein the method further comprises:
in response to the first model being the inference model, returning an inference result (Soler, [0014], The method includes converting the AI function and the inference path into a processing format, and sending and exporting the converted AI function and the converted interference path to an extraction and extension module of an AI workbench module); and
in response to the first model being the training model, returning a trained model (Soler, [0014], The method includes communicating of a communication adapter with the processing module continuously by using a supporting communication protocol for receiving training data as input for the AI function and forwarding the training data to the AI framework module.).
As to claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571 272-7952. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights