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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 recites receive a trapdoor and decrypt an encrypted tag.
The limitation of receiving a trapdoor, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuity” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving data. Similarly, the limitations of decrypting an encrypted tag, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of 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 “Mathematical Concepts and Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional element – using processing circuitry to perform the steps. The processing circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function), such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 10-11 includes limitations similar to the limitations of independent claim 1 and rejected under 3 USC 101 for being directed to abstract idea for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12 do not cure the deficiency of the independent claims and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a key generation device to generate” and “ a search execution device to decrypt” and in claim 11. Support for these limitations are in applicant specification paragraphs 0119 & 0122.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0065305) in view of Matsuda et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0287210).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kawai teaches a search execution device comprising processing circuitry to: receive a trapdoor generated based on a user secret key in which a search auxiliary key and an attribute of a user are set and a search keyword, together with a key identifier (ID) that identifies the search auxiliary key (Kawai, page, 5, paragraphs 0139-0145 and page 4, paragraphs 0098-0112; search device receives search query and auxiliary query; trapdoor is search query corresponding to keyword and user key; user key being set with attribute information; auxiliary key); and an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key indicated by the received key ID, so as to identify a tag that is retrievable for the attribute set in the user secret key and contains a search word corresponding to the search keyword (Kawai, page 5, paragraph 0147- page 6, paragraph 0162; auxiliary tag corresponding to auxiliary query & encryption tag corresponding to search query).
Kawai does not explicitly teach decrypt an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key.
Matsuda teaches decrypt an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key (Matsuda, page 21, paragraph 0612, 0625-0634 and page 13, paragraphs 0364-0370 & 0375-0385; decrypt based on trapdoor and group determination key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai with the teachings of Matsuda to decrypt encrypted data/tags to provide the advantage of accelerating secure search using probabilistic encryption (Matsuda, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 3, Kawai in view of Matsuda teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1, however, Matsuda teaches the device wherein the trapdoor is an element of a secret key of a lower layer of the user secret key, the secret key of the lower layer being able to decrypt only a tag in which a search word corresponding to the search keyword is set among tags that can be decrypted with the user secret key (Matsuda, pages 13-14, paragraphs 0375-0385; lower hierarchical layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai with the teachings of Matsuda to decrypt encrypted data/tags to provide the advantage of accelerating secure search using probabilistic encryption (Matsuda, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding independent claim 9, Kawai teaches a search execution method comprising receiving a trapdoor generated based on a user secret key in which a search auxiliary key and an attribute of a user are set and a search keyword, together with a key identifier (ID) that identifies the search auxiliary key (Kawai, page, 5, paragraphs 0139-0145 and page 4, paragraphs 0098-0112; search device receives search query and auxiliary query; trapdoor is search query corresponding to keyword and user key; user key being set with attribute information; auxiliary key); and an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key indicated by the received key ID, so as to identify a tag that is retrievable for the attribute set in the user secret key and contains a search word corresponding to the search keyword (Kawai, page 5, paragraph 0147- page 6, paragraph 0162; auxiliary tag corresponding to auxiliary query & encryption tag corresponding to search query).
Kawai does not explicitly teach decrypting an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key.
Matsuda teaches decrypting an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key (Matsuda, page 21, paragraph 0612, 0625-0634 and page 13, paragraphs 0364-0370 & 0375-0385; decrypt based on trapdoor and group determination key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai with the teachings of Matsuda to decrypt encrypted data/tags to provide the advantage of accelerating secure search using probabilistic encryption (Matsuda, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding independent claim 10, Kawai teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a search execution program that causes a computer to function as a search execution device to perform: a search request receiving process of receiving a trapdoor generated based on a user secret key in which a search auxiliary key and an attribute of a user are set and a search keyword, together with a key identifier (ID) that identifies the search auxiliary key (Kawai, page, 5, paragraphs 0139-0145 and page 4, paragraphs 0098-0112; search device receives search query and auxiliary query; trapdoor is search query corresponding to keyword and user key; user key being set with attribute information; auxiliary key); and s search executing process of an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key indicated by the received key ID, so as to identify a tag that is retrievable for the attribute set in the user secret key and contains a search word corresponding to the search keyword (Kawai, page 5, paragraph 0147- page 6, paragraph 0162; auxiliary tag corresponding to auxiliary query & encryption tag corresponding to search query).
Kawai does not explicitly teach decrypting an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key.
Matsuda teaches decrypting an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key (Matsuda, page 21, paragraph 0612, 0625-0634 and page 13, paragraphs 0364-0370 & 0375-0385; decrypt based on trapdoor and group determination key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai with the teachings of Matsuda to decrypt encrypted data/tags to provide the advantage of accelerating secure search using probabilistic encryption (Matsuda, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding independent claim 11, Kawai teaches a searchable encryption system comprising: a key generation device to generate a search auxiliary key and a user secret key in which the search auxiliary key and an attribute of a user are set (Kawai, page, 5, paragraphs 0139-0145 and page 4, paragraphs 0098-0112; user key being set with attribute information and auxiliary key); an access terminal to generate a trapdoor based on the user secret key generated by the key generation device and a search keyword (Kawai, page, 5, paragraphs 0139-0145 and page 4, paragraphs 0098-0112; search device receives search query and auxiliary query; trapdoor is search query corresponding to keyword and user key; user key being set with attribute information; auxiliary key); and an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key indicated by the received key ID, so as to identify a tag that is retrievable for the attribute set in the user secret key and contains a search word corresponding to the search keyword (Kawai, page 5, paragraph 0147- page 6, paragraph 0162; auxiliary tag corresponding to auxiliary query & encryption tag corresponding to search query).
Kawai does not explicitly teach decrypt an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key.
Matsuda teaches decrypt an encrypted tag in which an attribute of a user who is allowed retrieval and a search word are set, using the received trapdoor and the search auxiliary key (Matsuda, page 21, paragraph 0612, 0625-0634 and page 13, paragraphs 0364-0370 & 0375-0385; decrypt based on trapdoor and group determination key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai with the teachings of Matsuda to decrypt encrypted data/tags to provide the advantage of accelerating secure search using probabilistic encryption (Matsuda, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0065305) in view of Matsuda et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0287210) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Hayasaka et al. (US Patent No. 10,872,158).
Regarding claim 2, Kawai in view of Matsuda teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
Kawai in view of Matsuda does not explicitly teach the device wherein the processing circuitry deletes the search auxiliary key when the user secret key is revoked.
Hayasaka teaches wherein the processing circuitry deletes the search auxiliary key when the user secret key is revoked (Hayasaka, column 33, lines 31-60, coliumn16, lines 31-44 and column 17, lines 1-16; delete key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai in view of Matsuda with the teachings of Hayasaka to perform deletions to provide the advantage of improving security and speeding up search process with less data stored (Hayasaka, column 2, lines 21-21).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai in view of Matsuda and in further view of Hayasaka teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 2, however, Matsuda teaches the device wherein the trapdoor is an element of a secret key of a lower layer of the user secret key, the secret key of the lower layer being able to decrypt only a tag in which a search word corresponding to the search keyword is set among tags that can be decrypted with the user secret key (Matsuda, pages 13-14, paragraphs 0375-0385; lower hierarchical layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai in view of Matsuda and in further view of Hayasaka with the teachings of Matsuda to decrypt encrypted data/tags to provide the advantage of accelerating secure search using probabilistic encryption (Matsuda, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 12, Kawai in view of Matsuda teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 11.
Kawai in view of Matsuda does not explicitly teach the system wherein the search execution device deletes the search auxiliary key when the user secret key is revoked.
Hayasaka teaches wherein the search execution device deletes the search auxiliary key when the user secret key is revoked (Hayasaka, column 33, lines 31-60, coliumn16, lines 31-44 and column 17, lines 1-16; delete key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawai in view of Matsuda with the teachings of Hayasaka to perform deletions to provide the advantage of improving security and speeding up search process with less data stored (Hayasaka, column 2, lines 21-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art Hattori et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0207782) discloses a public parameter PK is key information used in a secret search system having: a transmission device generating and sending an encryption tag which is an encrypted keyword; a server receiving and storing the encryption tag and conducting a secret search in response to a request for the secret search; and a reception device generating a trapdoor which corresponds to a digital signature of the keyword and as well data requesting the secret search, sending the trapdoor to the server, and receiving a search result. The public parameter PK includes a true public parameter PP and a protection key PK'. The transmission device and the reception device require both the true public parameter PP and the protection key PK'; however, the server does not require the protection key PK'. The key generation device generates separately the true public parameter PP and the protection key PK' included in the public parameter PK. (Hattori, Abstract, Fig 4 and page 4, paragraphs 0068-0078), , however, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the processing circuitry receives the trapdoor k*2,dec indicated in Formula 1, and wherein the processing circuitry decrypts a tag (ci, c2), as indicated in Formula 2,…” (as recited in claim 5 and similarly in claims 6-8). Claims are allowed in light of the above claim limitations when in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NAITO et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0022397).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAQUEAL D WADE whose telephone number is (571)270-0357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/SHAQUEAL D WADE-WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407