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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an application filed on 04/23/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending, of which claims 6-10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are non-elected and therefore withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of 1-5, 11 and 14 in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims contain multiple ambiguities, as discussed below, that obscure the intended scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the processing circuitry being the normal execution environment in the each device of the server device and the client device authenticates validity of activating the processing circuitry being the secure execution environment in the each device with each other”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what component is authenticating what other component, and what is meant by “authenticates the validity of activating”. For example, it is unclear whether the claim requires: (1) the normal execution environment of each device to authenticate the secure execution environment of the same device; (2) the normal execution environments of the server device and client device to mutually authenticate each other; (3) the secure execution environments of the server device and client device to mutually authenticate each other; (4) the server device and client device authenticate the validity of activation of their respective secure execution environments; or (5) some other authentication relationship.
Claim 1 further recites that the normal execution environment “establishes a secure communication path to transmit and receive data encrypted between processing circuitry being the secure execution environment in the each device”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear which component establishes the secure communication path and which components are the endpoints of the path. For example, it is unclear whether: (1) the normal execution environments establish the path; (2) the secure execution environments establish the path; (3) the normal execution environments establish a communication path while the secure execution environments transmit and receive encrypted data over that path; or (4) both the normal and secure execution environments participate in establishing the path.
Claim 1 further recites that the secure execution environment in the server device performs an aggregation process to “to decrypt and aggregate the model information provided from the client device via the secure communication path” and that “the model information includes a client model provided from the client device to the server device, and a global model distributed from the server device to the client device”. These limitations are indefinite because it is unclear whether the “model information” provided from the client device and aggregated by the server device refers to the client model, the global model, both the client model and the global model, or some other model information.
Claim 1 further recites that the secure execution environment in the service device “encrypts the model information obtained by the aggregation process” and that the normal execution environment in the server device “stores the model information obtained by the aggregation process in an encrypted state”. These limitations are indefinite because it is unclear whether the “model information obtained by the aggregation process” refers to the global model, an aggregated client model, intermediate model information generated during the aggregation , or some other aggregation result.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “in the secure execution environment in the server device, decrypting the client model provided from the client device via the secure communication path, re-encrypting the client model decrypted, and transmitting the client model re-encrypted to the server device”. This limitation is indefinite because the transmitting step is performed “in the secure execution environment in the server device” but the destination is recited only as “the server device”. Because the secure execution environment is already in the server device, it is unclear whether the re-encrypted client model is transmitted to the normal execution environment in the server device, a memory of the server device, another component of the server device or the same secure execution environment.
Claim 11 further recites “in the secure execution environment in the server device, storing the client model re-encrypted in a memory”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the re-encrypted client model is stored by the secure execution environment or by the normal execution environment; in a memory accessible to the normal execution environment or in a memory accessible to the secure execution environment. This ambiguity is important because claim 11 previously recites transmitting the re-encrypted model “to the server device”, but does not clearly identify the component or execution environment that receives the re-encrypted client model.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program used for an information processing system including a server device and a client device”, and further recites that “the information processing program to cause a computer to perform” the claimed processes. This language is indefinite because it is unclear what “a computer” refers to. The recited processes include operations performed in the normal execution environment of each device of the server device and the client device, and operations performed in the secure execution environment and normal execution environment of the server device. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claimed program causes the server device, the client device, both the server device and the client device, or a separate computer to perform the recited operations.
Claim 14 further recites a process “to authenticate validity of activating the secure execution environment in the each device with each other”. This limitation is indefinite for reasons similar to those stated above with respect to claim 1.
In view of the above-mentioned ambiguities, the metes and bound so the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Therefore, examination on the merits with respect to prior art is not being made at this time. Upon clarification of the claims, the prior art will be considered and applied as appropriate.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “re-encrypts the client model decrypted” but should read “re-encrypts the decrypted client model”.
Claim 3 recites “the client model divided” and “each piece of the client model divided” which are grammatically unclear. It appears applicant may intend to refer to divided portions or pieces of the client model.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “a client model poisoned”. It appears applicant may intend to refer to “a poisoned client model”.
Claim 14 recites “to encrypt the model information obtained by the aggregation process”, which appears twice in succession.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comments
The claims contain additional grammatical and idiomatic issues that may obscure the intended scope of the claimed subject matter. Applicant is encouraged to review the claims as a whole and amend the claims, as appropriate, to clarify the claimed invention, including the component functions and information flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights