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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on March 14, 2024, claims 1, 4-7 and 9-11 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 07/22/2025. In this action claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ros-Giralt (US Pub. No. 20190065247) in view of Cheru et al. (US Pu. No. 20200401313). The Cheru et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 4, applicant argues “If the claim is deemed to involve an abstract idea (e.g., priority queue operations), the implementation is integrated into a specific practical application that improves the functioning of memory systems and data structures. Namely: the system maintains queue consistency even in the presence of partial information leakage; the claim incorporates a layered OTM architecture, where the movement of encrypted actual and dummy data, combined with deterministic update propagation, ensures constant-time obliviousness; operations like insertion and deletion include structured and secure element selection, reference, and deletion behavior across layers; and the update operation uses comparison logic across tree nodes and arrays to maintain queue correctness without data exposure.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Applicant argues that the claims comprises statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for storing, deleting, and updating files (the computer is being used as a generic tool). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claims is generally linking it to a computer environment, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Storing data does not improve the functioning of a computing system.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 4, applicant argues “Even if the claim were considered directed to a judicial exception, the additional elements—namely: layered OTMs with encrypted dummy and actual data stored in randomized order; encrypted metadata for position and layer retained in tree nodes; bottom-up update mechanisms across layers; and dummy deletion logic applied selectively to non-target layers— represent an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claimed features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and do not merely automate known manual processes. They provide a secure, efficient, and structurally consistent data processing method unavailable in conventional systems. The specification explains (e.g., J§[ [0039]—[0043]) that the system’s architecture is designed to prevent stochastic corruption and conceal access patterns, which are problems in real- world systems that manage sensitive data. Accordingly, the claimed invention includes significantly more than the judicial exception and should be found patent-eligible under $101.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Examiner has analyzed “additional elements” in the claims – generic computer performing generic computer functions of storing data - and concluded that the cited addition elements do not integrate the cited abstract idea into practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support for “sequentially update, in order from the layer in which the new data is stored to an upper layer, all nodes belonging to each of the layers by the update operation by using element information including encrypted priority, encrypted data, encrypted position, and encrypted layer of each moved data,” limitations.
Dependent claims 4, 5 and 9-11 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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, 4-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 4-7 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim system (claims 1, 4-5, 10-11), an apparatus (claim 6), an method (claim 7), device (claim 9) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 6, and 7 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
perform an operation on the data structure, wherein, in the data structure, each piece of data is stored in a randomized array of any layer together with a priority, and each node in the binary tree is capable of retaining, as element information, data, priority, position, and layer information in the layered randomized arrays,
wherein each layer includes an oblivious one-time memory (OTM) configured to store a plurality of encrypted actual data and a plurality of encrypted dummy data in a randomized manner (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure), and
each node in the binary tree is capable of retaining, as element information, encrypted data, encrypted priority, encrypted position indicating a location in the OTM, and an encrypted layer value indicating the layer in which the data is stored,
wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure),
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to execute one or both of an insertion operation and a delete operation,
in the insertion operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, new data that is data to be newly inserted into the randomized arrays,
specify an empty layer in the layered randomized arrays,
move
sequentially update, in order from the layer in which the new data is stored to an upper layer, all nodes belonging to each of the layers by the update operation by using element information including encrypted priority, encrypted data, encrypted position, and encrypted layer of each moved data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure), and
in the delete operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, a position and a layer of deletion target data that is data to be deleted from the randomized arrays,
perform reference and data deletion on the position in a layer that retains the deletion target data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure),
perform dummy reference and data deletion in each layer that does not retain the deletion target data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure), and
sequentially update nodes by the update operation from a lower layer in which the deletion operation has been performed to the upper layer for all positions subjected to reference (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 6, and 7:
a processor (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function); and
a memory (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
store, in the memory, a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data),
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to return data retained by a node of an uppermost layer in the data structure in a highest-priority data reference operation (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to returning data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to execute at least one of a highest-priority data extraction operation, a priority change operation, or an operation content concealing operation,
in the highest-priority data extraction operation, the program instructions cause the processor to acquire highest-priority data and position information of the highest-priority data by the highest-priority data reference operation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by extracting data), and
delete data at a position indicated by the position information by the delete operation in the priority change operation, the program instructions cause the processor to delete data at a change target position by the delete operation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by deleting data),
insert a changed priority and the data by the insertion operation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by inserting data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
perform an operation on the data structure, wherein, in the data structure, each piece of data is stored in a randomized array of any layer together with a priority, and each node in the binary tree is capable of retaining, as element information, data, priority, position, and layer information in the layered randomized arrays (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
store, in the memory, a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
perform each operation of the oblivious priority queue, including insertion, deletion, or priority modification, using a fixed sequence of memory accesses such that type of operation and accessed data location are concealed from an external observer (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by operating on a data structure).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
store, in the memory, a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to, for each operation, access a fixed number of memory locations in the oblivious one-time memory (OTM), regardless of data content or operation type (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to accessing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
1. (Currently Amended) A queue computation system that executes processing on an oblivious priority queue, the queue computation system comprising:
a processor (Paragraph 25 discloses a processor); and
a memory (Paragraph 25 discloses a memory) storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
store, in the memory, a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (Paragraph 13 discloses the several slots in the look-up able may be configured as an array or a binary tree and Paragraph 78 discloses a multiresolution priority queue).
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) 1, 4-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ros-Giralt (US Pub. No. 20190065247) in view of Cheru et al. (US Pu. No. 20200401313).
With respect to claim 1, Ros-Giralt teaches a queue computation system that executes processing on an oblivious priority queue, the queue computation system comprising:
a processor (Paragraph 25 discloses a processor); and
a memory (Paragraph 25 discloses a memory) storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
store, in the memory, a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (Paragraph 13 discloses the several slots in the look-up able may be configured as an array or a binary tree and Paragraph 78 discloses a multiresolution priority queue).
Ros-Giralt does not disclose wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node.
However, Cheru et al. teaches perform an operation on the data structure,
wherein, in the data structure, each piece of data is stored in a randomized array of any layer together with a priority,
wherein each layer includes an oblivious one-time memory (OTM) configured to store a plurality of encrypted actual data and a plurality of encrypted dummy data in a randomized manner (Paragraph 84 discloses Memory 516 may include additional logic and other resources (not shown) for processing object data requests, such as modules for generating, queueing, and otherwise managing object data requests), and
each node in the binary tree is capable of retaining, as element information, encrypted data, encrypted priority, encrypted position indicating a location in the OTM, and an encrypted layer value indicating the layer in which the data is stored (Paragraph 69 discloses encryption engine 534 may include a meta object encryption key or special encryption algorithm that is used only for encrypting meta objects and is not accessible to most users and system resource),
wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node (Paragraph 58 discloses update protocol 522.3 may execute a PUT or similar command to store the meta object to another data store),
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to execute one or both of an insertion operation and a delete operation,
in the insertion operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, new data that is data to be newly inserted into the randomized arrays,
specify an empty layer in the layered randomized arrays,
move and store, in the empty layer, all pieces of data in layers higher than the layer together with the new data (Storage manager 526 may include interfaces, functions, and/or parameters for reading, writing, and deleting object data elements in object store 560), and
sequentially update, in order from the layer in which the new data is stored to an upper layer, all nodes belonging to each of the layers by the update operation by using element information including encrypted priority, encrypted data, encrypted position, and encrypted layer of each moved data (Paragraph 147 discloses a meta object may be selected for replication based on the priority queue. For example, meta object work items may be arranged in the priority queue according to a first in first out order and a next work item may be selected based on the meta object work item at the top of the priority queue), and
in the delete operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, a position and a layer of deletion target data that is data to be deleted from the randomized arrays,
perform reference and data deletion on the position in a layer that retains the deletion target data,
perform dummy reference and data deletion in each layer that does not retain the deletion target data, and
sequentially update nodes by the update operation from a lower layer in which the deletion operation has been performed to the upper layer for all positions subjected to reference (Paragraph 151 and 152 discloses a delete marker corresponding to the target object may be generated. For example, a crafted delete marker using the object identifier for the operational data object may be generated and include a timestamp algorithm configured to place the crafted delete marker later in time than the subsequent target object put. At block 1310, the delete marker is put to the destination data store. For example, the delete marker with the delayed timestamp may be put using a special PUT command).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ros-Giralt with Cheru et al. to include wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node. This would have facilitated solving graph problems. See Cheru et al. Paragraph(s) 2-15.
The Ros-Giralt reference as modified by Cheru et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 4, Cheru et al. teaches the queue computation system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions cause the processor to return data retained by a node of an uppermost layer in the data structure in a highest-priority data reference operation (Paragraph 126 discloses a meta object work item may be added to a priority queue. For example, the object storage system may maintain multiple work queues, including at least one for priority items that should be executed prior to regular work items, and meta object work items may be allocated to the priority queue). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Ros-Giralt reference and the Cheru et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 4.
The Ros-Giralt reference as modified by Cheru et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4. With respect to claim 5, Vaideeswaran et al. teaches the queue computation system according to claim 4, wherein the program instructions cause the processor to execute at least one of a highest-priority data extraction operation, a priority change operation, or an operation content concealing operation,
in the highest-priority data extraction operation, the program instructions cause the processor to acquire highest-priority data and position information of the highest-priority data by the highest-priority data reference operation, and delete data at a position indicated by the position information by the delete operation,
in the priority change operation, the program instructions cause the processor to delete data at a change target position by the delete operation, and insert a changed priority and the data by the insertion operation, and
in the operation content concealing operation, the calculation unit program instructions cause the processor to replace input information corresponding to information expressing an operation content with a dummy, and execute the highest- priority data reference operation and the delete operation and the insertion operation (Paragraph 126 discloses a meta object work item may be added to a priority queue. For example, the object storage system may maintain multiple work queues, including at least one for priority items that should be executed prior to regular work items, and meta object work items may be allocated to the priority queue). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 4 provided above, combining the Ros-Giralt reference and the Cheru et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Ros-Giralt teaches a queue computation apparatus that executes processing on an oblivious priority queue, the queue computation device comprising:
a processor (Paragraph 25 discloses a processor); and
a memory (Paragraph 25 discloses a memory) storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
store, in the memory, a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (Paragraph 13 discloses the several slots in the look-up able may be configured as an array or a binary tree and Paragraph 78 discloses a multiresolution priority queue).
Ros-Giralt does not disclose wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node.
However, Cheru et al. teaches perform an operation on the data structure,
wherein, in the data structure, each piece of data is stored in a randomized array of any layer together with a priority,
wherein each layer includes an oblivious one-time memory (OTM) configured to store a plurality of encrypted actual data and a plurality of encrypted dummy data in a randomized manner (Paragraph 84 discloses Memory 516 may include additional logic and other resources (not shown) for processing object data requests, such as modules for generating, queueing, and otherwise managing object data requests), and
each node in the binary tree is capable of retaining, as element information, encrypted data, encrypted priority, encrypted position indicating a location in the OTM, and an encrypted layer value indicating the layer in which the data is stored (Paragraph 69 discloses encryption engine 534 may include a meta object encryption key or special encryption algorithm that is used only for encrypting meta objects and is not accessible to most users and system resource),
wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node (Paragraph 58 discloses update protocol 522.3 may execute a PUT or similar command to store the meta object to another data store),
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to execute one or both of an insertion operation and a delete operation,
in the insertion operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, new data that is data to be newly inserted into the randomized arrays,
specify an empty layer in the layered randomized arrays,
move and store, in the empty layer, all pieces of data in layers higher than the layer together with the new data (Storage manager 526 may include interfaces, functions, and/or parameters for reading, writing, and deleting object data elements in object store 560), and
sequentially update, in order from the layer in which the new data is stored to an upper layer, all nodes belonging to each of the layers by the update operation by using element information including encrypted priority, encrypted data, encrypted position, and encrypted layer of each moved data (Paragraph 147 discloses a meta object may be selected for replication based on the priority queue. For example, meta object work items may be arranged in the priority queue according to a first in first out order and a next work item may be selected based on the meta object work item at the top of the priority queue), and
in the delete operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, a position and a layer of deletion target data that is data to be deleted from the randomized arrays,
perform reference and data deletion on the position in a layer that retains the deletion target data,
perform dummy reference and data deletion in each layer that does not retain the deletion target data, and
sequentially update nodes by the update operation from a lower layer in which the deletion operation has been performed to the upper layer for all positions subjected to reference (Paragraph 151 and 152 discloses a delete marker corresponding to the target object may be generated. For example, a crafted delete marker using the object identifier for the operational data object may be generated and include a timestamp algorithm configured to place the crafted delete marker later in time than the subsequent target object put. At block 1310, the delete marker is put to the destination data store. For example, the delete marker with the delayed timestamp may be put using a special PUT command).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ros-Giralt with Cheru et al. to include wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node. This would have facilitated solving graph problems. See Cheru et al. Paragraph(s) 2-15.
With respect to claim 7, Vaideeswaran et al. teaches a queue computation method performed by a queue computation system that executes processing on an oblivious priority queue, the queue computation system including a storage that stores a data structure in which layered randomized arrays and a binary tree are combined (Paragraph 13 discloses the several slots in the look-up able may be configured as an array or a binary tree and Paragraph 78 discloses a multiresolution priority queue).
Ros-Giralt does not disclose wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node.
However, Cheru et al. teaches perform an operation on the data structure,
wherein, in the data structure, each piece of data is stored in a randomized array of any layer together with a priority,
wherein each layer includes an oblivious one-time memory (OTM) configured to store a plurality of encrypted actual data and a plurality of encrypted dummy data in a randomized manner (Paragraph 84 discloses Memory 516 may include additional logic and other resources (not shown) for processing object data requests, such as modules for generating, queueing, and otherwise managing object data requests), and
each node in the binary tree is capable of retaining, as element information, encrypted data, encrypted priority, encrypted position indicating a location in the OTM, and an encrypted layer value indicating the layer in which the data is stored (Paragraph 69 discloses encryption engine 534 may include a meta object encryption key or special encryption algorithm that is used only for encrypting meta objects and is not accessible to most users and system resource),
wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node (Paragraph 58 discloses update protocol 522.3 may execute a PUT or similar command to store the meta object to another data store),
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to execute one or both of an insertion operation and a delete operation,
in the insertion operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, new data that is data to be newly inserted into the randomized arrays,
specify an empty layer in the layered randomized arrays,
move and store, in the empty layer, all pieces of data in layers higher than the layer together with the new data (Storage manager 526 may include interfaces, functions, and/or parameters for reading, writing, and deleting object data elements in object store 560), and
sequentially update, in order from the layer in which the new data is stored to an upper layer, all nodes belonging to each of the layers by the update operation by using element information including encrypted priority, encrypted data, encrypted position, and encrypted layer of each moved data (Paragraph 147 discloses a meta object may be selected for replication based on the priority queue. For example, meta object work items may be arranged in the priority queue according to a first in first out order and a next work item may be selected based on the meta object work item at the top of the priority queue), and
in the delete operation, the program instructions cause the processor to
take, as input, a position and a layer of deletion target data that is data to be deleted from the randomized arrays,
perform reference and data deletion on the position in a layer that retains the deletion target data,
perform dummy reference and data deletion in each layer that does not retain the deletion target data, and
sequentially update nodes by the update operation from a lower layer in which the deletion operation has been performed to the upper layer for all positions subjected to reference (Paragraph 151 and 152 discloses a delete marker corresponding to the target object may be generated. For example, a crafted delete marker using the object identifier for the operational data object may be generated and include a timestamp algorithm configured to place the crafted delete marker later in time than the subsequent target object put. At block 1310, the delete marker is put to the destination data store. For example, the delete marker with the delayed timestamp may be put using a special PUT command).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ros-Giralt with Cheru et al. to include wherein, in an update operation, program instructions cause the processor to take, as input, an update target node in the binary tree, select element information with lowest priority from among element information retained by a left child node of the update target node, element information retained by a right child node of the update target node, and element information of a randomized array corresponding to the update target node, and store the selected element information in the update target node. This would have facilitated solving graph problems. See Cheru et al. Paragraph(s) 2-15.
With respect to claim 9, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 9 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
The Ros-Giralt reference as modified by Cheru et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 10, Cheru et al. teaches the queue computation system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to perform each operation of the oblivious priority queue, including insertion, deletion, or priority modification, using a fixed sequence of memory accesses such that type of operation and accessed data location are concealed from an external observer (Paragraph 126 discloses a meta object work item may be added to a priority queue. For example, the object storage system may maintain multiple work queues, including at least one for priority items that should be executed prior to regular work items, and meta object work items may be allocated to the priority queue). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Ros-Giralt reference and the Cheru et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 10.
The Ros-Giralt reference as modified by Cheru et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 11, Cheru et al. teaches the computation system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to, for each operation, access a fixed number of memory locations in the oblivious one-time memory (OTM), regardless of data content or operation type (Paragraph 126 discloses a meta object work item may be added to a priority queue. For example, the object storage system may maintain multiple work queues, including at least one for priority items that should be executed prior to regular work items, and meta object work items may be allocated to the priority queue). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 1 provided above, combining the Ros-Giralt reference and the Cheru et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 10.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20240086216 is directed to PRIORITIZING TASKS OF AN APPLICATION SERVER: [0009] According to one embodiment a method for prioritizing queued tasks waiting to access a resource associated with a resource manager in an application server, wherein an incoming task received at the application server from a calling application includes a status indicating that the incoming task is in a final phase during which a response to the calling application is created is provided. The embodiment may include receiving an incoming task. The embodiment may further include identifying a status of the incoming task. The embodiment may also include, in response to identifying that the status of the incoming task is in a final phase, placing the incoming task in a priority queue. The embodiment may further include analyzing any queued tasks waiting to access the resource in the priority queue and one or more other queues. The embodiment may also include processing a queued task from the priority queue in preference to the one or more other queues.
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights