DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 18/477,839 filed on September 29, 2023.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claims 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “storing the plaintext value comprising a plurality of bits arranged in a predefined order; dividing the plaintext value into a plurality of ordered chunks of plaintext, wherein an initial ordered chunk of plaintext comprises an initial portion of bits in the plurality of bits and wherein each subsequent ordered chunk of plaintext comprises a subsequent portion of bits in the plurality of bits; encrypting, by an order preserving encryption algorithm, each ordered chunk of plaintext to generate a plurality of ciphertext chunks, each ciphertext chunk comprising a plurality of ciphertext bits; and concatenating the plurality of ciphertext chunks with one another to generate a ciphertext value mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e., a device for order preserving encryption). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a hardware device performing a generic computer function of storing/dividing/encrypting/concatenating such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply to data using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. 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 computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field receiving, and displaying by the processor using an interface; in view of Berkheimer memo. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-9 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 are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Regarding Claims 10 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
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 computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field receiving, and displaying by the processor using an interface; in view of Berkheimer memo. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 11-14 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 are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Regarding Claims 15 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
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 computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field receiving, and displaying by the processor using an interface; in view of Berkheimer memo. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 16-20 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 are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by JHO et al. (JHO) U.S. Pub. Number 2012/0163586.
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 15; JHO discloses a method executed by one or more computing devices for order preserving encryption of a plaintext value, the method comprising: (abstract) An order-preserving encryption apparatus includes an initializer for setting a total space of a ciphertext with respect to a total space of a plaintext by considering security of the ciphertext, and setting a secret key for encryption … Further, the order-preserving encryption apparatus includes a ciphertext generator for generating information about size of a bit constituting the ciphertext and the plaintext; and a plaintext adjusting unit for adjusting a magnitude of the total plaintext space and a magnitude of the plaintext according to the ciphertext).
storing the plaintext value comprising a plurality of bits arranged in a predefined order (para. [0006] a database system provides not only a simple storage of data but also an application environment to search and utilize data in the database. However, since an encrypted data hinders the database system from obtaining any kind of information from itself, the solution encrypting all data to be stored fundamentally blocks application services of database system.];
dividing the plaintext value into a plurality of ordered chunks of plaintext, wherein an initial ordered chunk of plaintext comprises an initial portion of bits in the plurality of bits and wherein each subsequent ordered chunk of plaintext comprises a subsequent portion of bits in the plurality of bits (para. [0052] fig.3, First, a pivot p.sub.1 is generated by applying the secret key determined in the initial preparing step to the pseudo-random number generator for one plaintext `a` in step S212, para [0061] the apparatus 100 can generates the pivot p.sub.1 when there is a data having a plaintext range [1, 2.sup.m] including the plaintext `a`. The apparatus 100 generates a first pivot p1 and determines the bit of the ciphertext to be 0 because plaintext `a` is smaller than the pivot p1, and then adjusts the plaintext range [1, 2.sup.m], and adjusts the plaintext according the adjustment of the plaintext range).
encrypting, by an order preserving encryption algorithm, each ordered chunk of plaintext to generate a plurality of ciphertext chunks, each ciphertext chunk comprising a plurality of ciphertext bits; and concatenating the plurality of ciphertext chunks with one another to generate a ciphertext value (para. [0054] the order-preserving encryption apparatus 100 can adjust the plaintext according to the bit of ciphertext determined by the plaintext adjusting unit 140 in step S220.]. para [0054] the order-preserving encryption apparatus 100 can adjust the plaintext according to the bit of ciphertext determined by the plaintext adjusting unit 140 in step S220.
Regarding claim 20; JHO discloses a non-transitory computer of claim 19, wherein the plurality of fraction bits are divided among two ordered chunks of plaintext (fig.3).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JHO et al. (JHO) U.S. Pub. Number 2012/0163586 in view of Horne. (Horne) WO 2023014929
Regarding claim 9; JHO discloses the method of claim 1.
JHO does not disclose which Horne discloses wherein the order preserving encryption is one-way encryption (Horne: page 5; para. [20]. clients may generate cryptographically protected data sets and provide the cryptographically protected data - and not the plaintext data - to a server. Cryptographic protection techniques may refer to privacy-preserving techniques are utilized to ensure the confidentiality of data provided to a third-party service, including but not limited to the use of keyed one-way functions, order preserving encryption, homomorphic encryption, and combinations thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of JHO to provide wherein the order preserving encryption is one-way encryption, as teaches by Horne The motivation would be to provide protected data sets and provide the cryptographically protected data - and not the plaintext data - to a server. Cryptographic protection techniques may refer to privacy-preserving techniques are utilized to ensure the confidentiality of data provided to a third-party service intensive processing occurs).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11-14 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Pub. Number 2018/0165460 A1 to tueno-tueno teaches order preserving encryption. A method may include: traversing, by a cloud service provider, an order preserving encryption (OPE) tree based on a result of an oblivious comparison performed by a data owner and a data client, the OPE tree having nodes that each correspond to a ciphertext of data associated with the data owner, the ciphertext of the data being stored at the cloud service provider, and a relative position of the nodes within the OPE tree corresponding to an order that is present in the data associated with the data owner; and determining, based on the traversing of the OPE tree, an OPE encoding for an input value from the data client, the OPE encoding for the input value indicative of a position of a node corresponding to the input value within the OPE tree.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM- 4 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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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.
/VU V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491