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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Regarding the objection to the title:
Applicant’s amendment is considered to have overcome the objection. As such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b):
Applicant’s amendment is considered to have overcome the applied rejection of claims 1-6 and 18, and aspects of the applied rejection of claims 11-16. As such, the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18 has been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 11-16 has been maintained because “applied to a terminal device” language discussed in the applied rejection has not been addressed.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, in view of the amended claim language, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of “A SGX-Based and Quantum-Resitant [sic] Secure Cloud Storage System.”
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 11-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 11 is drawn to “[a] data processing apparatus, applied to a terminal device,” which renders it indefinite because it is not clear how to interpret the scope of “applied to a terminal device.” It is not clear if “applied to a terminal device” is intended to limit the structure of the data processing apparatus, or merely to imply that it is associated with a terminal device. Additionally, it is not clear if and how the “data processing apparatus” is intended to be distinct from the “terminal device” since it includes a processor configured to perform steps by the terminal device. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected.
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, 5, 11-13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarraya (US 2023/0022539 A1) in view of Qian (US 2022/0269816 A1) and Yu (“A SGX-Based and Quantum-Resitant Secure Cloud Storage System”).
Regarding claim 1, Jarraya discloses: A data processing method, applied to a terminal device (entity device as in FIG. 1 and [0061] of Jarraya), the method comprising:
obtaining service data of a target service (e.g., customer data / network slice data as in [0061] and [0071] of Jarraya), and transferring the service data of the target service to a trusted execution environment [of the] terminal device (first TEE / TEE18 in FIG. 1 and [0062] of Jarraya), wherein a privacy preserving rule (anonymization parameters, primitives, and keys as in [0024] of Jarraya; hereinafter referred to as anonymization parameters) for performing privacy processing on the service data of the target service is set in the trusted execution environment [of the] terminal device;
Refer to at least [0051], [0062], [0070], and [0082] of Jarraya with respect to anonymization parameters for anonymizing data associated with a first entity using a first TEE.
Refer to at least [0061], [0085], [0047], [0071], and [0091] of Jarraya with respect to collecting first entity data.
performing privacy processing on the service data of the target service based on the privacy preserving rule in the trusted execution environment [of the] terminal device, to obtain privacy−based service data; and
Refer to at least [0067], [0071], and [0091] of Jarraya with respect to the first TEE anonymizing the obtained first entity data.
transferring the privacy−based service data to a trusted execution environment in a server (common TEE as in FIG. 1 of Jarraya) that is connected to the terminal device via a communication network (e.g., Network 16a-16n in FIG. 1 of Jarraya),
Refer to at least [0084] and [0091] of Jarraya with respect to the first TEE sending the anonymized data to the common TEE for analysis.
wherein the transferring the differential privacy-based service data triggers the server to obtain risk label information corresponding to the service data of the target service, and to determine risk information corresponding to the service data of the target service based on the risk label information and the privacy−based service data in the trusted execution environment in the server.
Refer to at least [0046]-[0049], [0074], [0004], [0006], and [0094] of Jarraya with respect to security analysis at the common TEE, including security insights and actions, covering vulnerabilities, threats, risks, and fraud events.
Jarraya does not specify: obtaining the service data by using a trusted application corresponding to the target service; the trusted execution environment of the terminal device further comprising a trusted execution environment in the terminal device; the privacy processing further comprising differential privacy processing. However, Jarraya in view of Qian and Yu discloses: obtaining the service data by using a trusted application corresponding to the target service;
Refer to at least FIG. 3, 5, and 7 of Qian with respect to an application for collecting user data (e.g., [0046] and [0069] of Qian).
the trusted execution environment of the terminal device further comprising a trusted execution environment in the terminal device;
Refer to at least [0048] and [0054] of Qian with respect to performing data transformation on the user data by a trusted execution environment provided on a user electronic device.
Refer to at least pages 41-43 of Yu with respect to a function enclave being operable either locally or remotely.
the privacy processing further comprising differential privacy processing.
Refer to at least the abstract, FIG. 8, and [0072] of Qian with respect to applying differential privacy using the TEE.
The teachings of Jarraya and Qian both concern privacy processing using a TEE for entity data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Jarraya to further implement an application for collecting data and differential privacy processing because the substitution of one known element for another (purpose built collection applications instead of directly collecting data; the particular type of anonymization process) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time (collecting data using a collection application; using a particular cryptographic process for another). It further would have been obvious to implement the non-common TEE of Jarraya locally on the entity device because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time as in pages 41-43 of Yu.
Regarding claim 2, Jarraya-Qian-Yu discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the transferring the service data of the target service to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device comprises: transferring the service data of the target service to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device in a ciphertext manner by using the trusted application.
Refer to at least [0070] and [0078] of Jarraya with respect to obtaining the entity data in an encrypted form at the first TEE.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Jarraya-Qian-Yu discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving an update request for the privacy preserving rule in the trusted execution environment in the terminal device, wherein the update request comprises to-be-updated rule data, and the to-be-updated rule data is a ciphertext; transferring the to-be-updated rule data to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device by using the trusted application; and in the trusted execution environment in the terminal device, decrypting the to-be-updated rule data, and updating the privacy preserving rule based on the decrypted to-be-updated rule data.
Refer to at least [0023]-[0024], [0063], and [0080]-[0082] of Jarraya with respect to negotiating anonymization parameters between the central and entity TEE.
Refer to at least [0089] of Jarraya with respect to a secure channel between the TEE and various entity TEEs.
Regarding claim 5, Jarraya-Qian-Yu discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the transferring the differential privacy−based service data to the trusted execution environment in the server comprises: encrypting the differential privacy−based service data in the trusted execution environment in the terminal device, to obtain encrypted data; and transferring the encrypted data to the trusted execution environment in the server by using the trusted application.
Refer to at least [0062] and [0088] of Jarraya with respect to encryption for the entity data.
Refer to at least [0089] of Jarraya with respect to a secure channel between the TEE and various entity TEEs.
Regarding independent claim 11, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15, they are substantially similar to claims 2-3 and 5 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding independent claim 18, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarraya-Qian-Yu as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Rodriguez (US 2022/0198034 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jarraya-Qian-Yu does not specify: wherein the privacy preserving rule is set based on at least one of: a privacy preserving rule established based on a differential privacy algorithm of a Laplace mechanism; or a privacy preserving rule established based on a differential privacy algorithm of an exponential mechanism. However, Jarraya-Qian in view of Rodriguez discloses: wherein the privacy preserving rule is set based on at least one of: a privacy preserving rule established based on a differential privacy algorithm of a Laplace mechanism; or a privacy preserving rule established based on a differential privacy algorithm of an exponential mechanism.
Refer to at least [0256]-[0257] of Rodriguez with respect to differential privacy processing including adding Laplace noise.
The teachings of Rodriguez likewise concern differential privacy processing techniques, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Jarraya-Qian-Yu to implement differential privacy processing adding Laplace noise because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Jarraya-Qian-Yu does not specify: wherein an uploading probability is set for the service data of the target service, and the transferring the service data of the target service to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device comprises: determining, based on the uploading probability corresponding to the service data, whether the service data needs to be uploaded to the server; and transferring, in response to a determination that the service data needs to be uploaded to the server, the service data to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device. However, Jarraya-Qian-Yu in view of Rodriguez discloses: wherein an uploading probability is set for the service data of the target service, and the transferring the service data of the target service to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device comprises: determining, based on the uploading probability corresponding to the service data, whether the service data needs to be uploaded to the server; and transferring, in response to a determination that the service data needs to be uploaded to the server, the service data to the trusted execution environment in the terminal device.
Refer to at least [0154] and [0166] of Rodriguez with respect to temporal parameters for when data can be collected—e.g., at various constrained times and based on comparison with a timestamp.
The teachings of Rodriguez likewise concern gathering entity and service data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Jarraya-Qian-Yu to implement temporal parameters for when to collect entity data for at least the purpose of reducing needless processing time and bandwidth by properly scheduling collection according to set parameters.
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 4 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 16, it is substantially similar to claim 6 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
