DETAILED ACTION
Office Action Summary
Claims 1-6 and 22-33 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-6 and 22-33 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
The specification is objected to because it does not have any drawings necessary for understanding the invention.
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 .
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.
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 1-6 and 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-6 and 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites receiving two sets of data and computing the intersection between the data.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea drawn to performing mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” to perform the steps (in claims 14-15), nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from merely being the performance of mathematical calculations. For example, but for the “a processor” language, obtaining a key, receiving an identifier, and generating a secret key in the context of the claims encompasses the performance of mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the abstract idea of mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” 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 one additional element – using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining a key, receiving an identifier, and generating a secret key) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception 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. 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 of using a processor to perform the steps 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.
Dependent claims 3-6 and 22-33 are also rejected for the same reason as cited above for not reciting any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 22-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for allowance of the claims are applicant’s arguments and the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, “receiving, at the third party, first information regarding a first key set generated by the first party using a key agreement protocol between the first party and the second party, the first key set comprising encoded keys for elements of a first set of the first party; receiving, at the third party, second information regarding a second key set generated by the second party using the key agreement protocol between the first party and the second party, the second key set comprising encoded keys for elements of a second set of the second party; and calculating, at the third party, solutions to an equation based on the first information and the second information, the solutions to the equation correspond to common elements of the respective sets of the first party and the second party, wherein the third party obtains no other information regarding the first set or the second set, and wherein the first party and the second party do not obtain information regarding the common elements of the respective sets during the determining the private set intersection by the third party or any information regarding the elements of a set of another participating party during the determining the private set intersection” that is in all claims which is not found in the prior art references previously relied upon or any new references found.
The closest art of record Bacon et al. (US 9846785 B2) teaches “A querying node generates public keys, secret keys, and switch key matrices. A public key associated with a first level and the switch key matrices are sent to a receiving node. The receiving node generates a key-value table, mapping values to keys, and encodes the keys and values using a polynomial ring of a predetermined type. The querying node encodes using a polynomial ring of the same predetermined type, then encrypts a query, using a public key, and sends the query to the receiving node. The receiving node performs a homomorphic comparison of the encrypted, encoded query with each encoded key entry in the encoded key-value store to determine a comparison result. The receiving node sums the results for each of the value entries and returns the summed result to the querying node. The querying node decrypts and decodes the received result using the corresponding secret key.” but does not teach the indicated subject matter above.
Another art of record Li et al. (US 10885203 B2) teaches “A computer-implemented method includes: encrypting, by a first data party, identification data to generate a first identification data ciphertext, in which the first data party holds an identification dataset including the identification data; sending a first ciphertext set to a second data party, in which the first ciphertext set includes the first identification data ciphertext; receiving a second ciphertext set from the second data party; decrypting the second identification data ciphertext to generate a third identification data ciphertext, in which a third ciphertext set includes the third identification data ciphertext; receiving a fourth ciphertext set from the second data party, obtaining the third identification data ciphertext common to the third ciphertext set and the fourth ciphertext set; calculating a homomorphic addition result of the business data ciphertext corresponding to the third identification data ciphertext; and sending the homomorphic addition result to the second data party.” but also does not teach the indicated subject matter above.
Another art of record Soriente et al. (US 11070366 B2) teaches “A method for anonymous authentication and key establishment based on passwords (APAKE), includes instantiating, by the server, an OPRF scheme and a symmetric encryption scheme; engaging in, by the client and the server, an OPRFEvaluate protocol so that the client learns a decryption key associated with its password while the server learns nothing; securely transferring, by the server, a nonce and a symmetric encryption key to the client if the client holds a valid password; sending, by the client, its nonce encrypted under the symmetric encryption key; using, by the server, the symmetric encryption key to decipher ciphertext received by virtue of the sending, by the client, its nonce encrypted under the symmetric encryption key and to recover the client's nonce; and computing, by the server and the client, a compute key based on the client's nonce and the server's nonce.” but also does not teach the indicated subject matter above.
Other Art of Record
Bong Kim (US 11128454 B2) teaches “An advanced encryption and key exchange (AEKE) algorithm for quantum safe cryptography is disclosed. The AEKE algorithm does not use hard mathematical problems that are easily solvable on a quantum computer with Shor's algorithm. Instead, new encryption algorithm uses simple linear algebra, rank deficient matrix and bilinear equation, which will be easy to understand, fast, efficient and practical but virtually impossible to crack.”
Peddada et al. (US 12418405 B2) teaches “A remote security controller (RSC) generates a private key for a client application on a different host computing device and splits the private key into a first fragment and a second fragment. The first fragment, but not the second fragment, is encrypted using a symmetric key. The split private key is returned to the different host computing device. A local security controller (LSC) on the different host computing device is able to derive the symmetric key using a key agreement protocol with the RSC. When the client application needs to digitally sign a data value with the split private key, the client application generates a first partial Multiparty Computation (MPC) signature using the second fragment. The LSC generates a second partial MPC signature with the first fragment, which has been decrypted using the symmetric key. The first and second partial MPC signatures are combinable to digitally sign the data value.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMON P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3906. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7AM-4PM).
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 on (571) 272-1183. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMON P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407