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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 9/6/2024, in which, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/4/2024 and 4/11/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/6/2024 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 11 and 20 reciting “obtaining, by each secure multi-party computation (MPC) computation party of a system comprising a data provider and n secure MPC computation parties, a data message sent by a data provider of the system, wherein n is an integer greater than 3;
obtaining, as an obtained data message, a first data component based on the data message; and
performing, by each MPC computation party by using the first data component, arithmetic sharing processing to obtain a second data component, so as to perform MPC processing, wherein n data messages received by the n MPC computation parties comprise:
a data message sent after the data provider splits private data into m data components; and
m data messages each are used to carry one data component, wherein m is greater than 1 and is less than or equal to n, and m is a positive integer.”
Since the claim reciting “a data message sent by a data provider of the system” and “a data message sent after the data provider splits private data into m data components”. It is unclear, if “a data message” is the same or a different message?
In the obtaining step, the MPC obtained a data message from the data provider; however, in the performing step, a data message sent after the data provider splits private data into m data components… It is unclear if “a data message” is the entire content or each split parts.
If the data provider first split the content into m parts, since it is a data message send to each MPC, it is unclear if the “a data message” contains the same segments or different segments.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 are rejected for at least in part for incorporating the deficiency as stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed is being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method and system. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’1l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent- eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-— ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original).
The USPTO published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO's examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.1
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(II) (A) (1), 2106.04(a). If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP §§ 2106.04 (IT) (A) (2), 2106.04(d). Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP § 2106.04 (IT) (A) (2).
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1
The abstract idea to which claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to is mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and mathematical relationships/calculations. In particular, the claims recite the following abstract concepts:
“obtaining a data message sent by a data provider of the system, wherein n is an integer greater than 3;” (i.e., abstract idea of receiving and collecting data/information as found abstract by the Courts in Internet Patents, Content Extraction, Digitech, CyberSource, Electric Power Group, Classen, FairWarning)
“obtaining a first data component based on the data message;” (i.e., abstract idea of receiving and collecting data/information as found abstract by the Courts in Internet Patents, Content Extraction, Digitech, CyberSource, Electric Power Group, Classen, FairWarning)
“performing arithmetic sharing processing to obtain a second data component, wherein n data messages received by the n MPC computation parties comprise: a data message sent after the data provider splits private data into m data components; and m data messages each are used to carry one data component, wherein m is greater than 1 and is less than or equal to n, and m is a positive integer.” (i.e., abstract idea of splits private data into m data components and arithmetic sharing based on mathematical correlation without reciting any concrete application of these mathematical correlations. Mathematical transformations/algorithms by themselves are abstract idea and thus, the claims as a whole are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical algorithm as recited in the aforementioned limitations and found abstract by the Grams, Digitech, SmartGene, Electric Power Group)
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified abstract ideas in patent claims by making comparisons to concepts found in past decisions to be judicial exceptions to eligibility. The 2019 IEG summarizes concepts the courts have considered to be abstract ideas by associating eligibility decisions with judicial descriptors (e.g., “an idea of itself,” “certain methods of organizing human activities”, “mathematical relationships and formulas”) based on common characteristics. These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of obtaining data/information (i.e., abstract idea mental process) and data manipulation based on Mathematical transformations/algorithms (i.e., mathematical relationships and formulas) as defined by the claimed steps above.
Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, data is simply being manipulation based on Mathematical transformations/algorithms which was ruled abstract in:
a. Collecting and comparing known information (Classen);
b. Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC);
c. Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning);
d. Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction);
e. Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource);
f. Collecting, selecting, categorizing, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group);
g. Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);
h. Virus Screening (int. Ventures v. Symantec ‘610 patent);
i. A mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams).
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than data collecting as described in the claims that can be performed mentally (or with a pen and piece of paper). The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts. For example, splits private data into m data components by mathematical transformations (Gram, Digitech), and arithmetic sharing processing is Mathematical distribution algorithm (Gram, Digitech). While the specific facts of the case differ from these cases, the claims are still directed to collecting, comparing, and removing information and providing known information.
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2
The 2019 Revised Guidance sets forth a non-exhaustive listing of considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.04(d). In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of splits private data into m data components and arithmetic sharing (i.e., Mathematical transformations/algorithms). The claims do not require an arguably inventive set of components, methods, or algorithms. The abstract idea is implemented using generic computing elements (“computers, programs, medium”) and an off the shelf that do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims (step 2A, prong 2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional generic computing elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite a mental process, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("(Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional feature[s] that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” and “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” as examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The considerations are whether the claim includes:
Improvements to another technology or technical field;
Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application;
Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment;
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The relevant question under Step 2B is whether claim includes an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements of claim beyond the abstract idea, namely, a “computer hardware”, “arithmetic sharing”, “multi-party computation (MPC)” is a conventional computing equipment and algorithm used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. These additional elements do not provide an inventive concept; rather, they simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a computer when taken in combination with the functional elements claim(s) is/are directed to system and method to obtain data from data provider and sharing arithmetic based on mathematical transformations/algorithms, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea (splitting private data and arithmetic sharing) to a particular technological environment (a general purpose computer and/or environment of the user). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers in our common day-to-day interactions. Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods/devices lacks an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mathematical transformations/algorithms, e.g., splitting data and sharing arithmetic.
Dependent claims do not add an inventive step to the abstract idea of the independent claims and are therefore rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, pertain to arithmetic sharing processing, difference between the first derived value and the second derived value, converting…from a logical component to an arithmetic component, binary bit operations for one-hot encoding without adding any inventive concept or using an unconventional computing element or improving the underlying computer technology.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20170372078 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20210051007 A1; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Lewis discloses a computer-implemented method for data processing, comprising:
obtaining, by each secure multi-party computation (MPC) computation party of a system comprising a data provider and n secure MPC computation parties, a data message sent by a data provider of the system, wherein n is an integer greater than 3 (the different cloud provider receiving fragments from the storage director which are segments into N parts, and in which there are N number of cloud providers [Lewis; ¶15, 17-24; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]);
obtaining, as an obtained data message, a first data component based on the data message (each cloud provider received a file fragment from each message send [Lewis; ¶15, 17-24; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]); and
performing, by each MPC computation party by using the first data component, [[arithmetic sharing processing to obtain a second data component]], so as to perform MPC processing, wherein n data messages received by the n MPC computation parties comprise:
a data message sent after the data provider splits private data into m data components (each cloud provider received a file fragment from each message, after the file was splits into N fragments [Lewis; ¶15, 17-24; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]); and
m data messages each are used to carry one data component, wherein m is greater than 1 and is less than or equal to n, and m is a positive integer (each cloud provider received one or multiple fragments, wherein the total fragments is equal to or less than the cloud provider N [Lewis; ¶17-24; Fig. 3 and associated text]).
Lewis discloses data splitting into N fragments and stores them at a plurality of cloud storage. Lewis does not explicilty discloses performing, by each MPC computation party by using the first data component, arithmetic sharing processing to obtain a second data component; however, Li teaches this feature.
In particular, Li teaches if the secure multi-party computation algorithm carried in the computing nodes deployed in the distributed network is the secret sharing algorithm, after the target computing node reads private data S that is needed to participate in the secure multi-party computation from a deployed data source, the target computing node may first split the private data into d shares according to the secret sharing algorithm [Li; ¶75-76, 80-83]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewis in view of Li apply secret sharing algorithm with the motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein:
if m is equal to n, and each data message carries one data component, obtaining, as an obtained data component, a first data component based on the data message comprises: a data component carried in the obtained data message is used as the first data component (when N block is equal to N cloud providers, send the message/block to the cloud provider [Lewis; ¶15, 17-24; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]); or
if m is greater than 1 and is less than n, the m data messages each carry one data component, and remaining data messages carry zero data components, the obtaining a first data component based on the data message comprises: using the carried data component as the first data component if the obtained data message carries a data component, wherein the first data component is empty if the obtained data message carries zero data components (when N block is equal to N cloud providers (each cloud provider received one or multiple fragments, wherein the total fragments is equal to or less than the cloud provider N. no block 1 to cloud provider 2 [Lewis; ¶17-24; Fig. 3 and associated text]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein performing, by each MPC computation party by using the first data component, arithmetic sharing processing to obtain a second data component, comprises: if m=n performing, by each MPC computation party, arithmetic sharing processing by using the first data component as to-be-shared data, to obtain the second data component; or
if m is greater than 1 and is less than n, performing, by each MPC computation party, zero-sharing processing, to obtain, as an obtained third data component, a third data component; combining the obtained third data component and the first data component carried in the data message, to obtain a fourth data component; and performing arithmetic sharing processing by using the fourth data component as to-be-shared data, to obtain the second data component (the computing node may choose to reserve the N.sup.th share locally, and transmit the remaining N−1 random numbers, as the computing parameters, to other computing nodes. Alternatively, the computing node may choose to reserve one of the N−1 random numbers locally, and transmit the N.sup.th random number and the remaining of the N−1 random numbers, as the computing parameters, to other computing nodes [Li; ¶75-76, 80-83]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein the zero-sharing processing comprises: generating, by each MPC computation party, a first derived value by using a locally held first zero-sharing key, and generating a second derived value by using a locally held second zero-sharing key; and obtaining the third data component based on a difference between the first derived value and the second derived value (generating a key at two or more devices, shares of the key may be obtained by each of the computation devices. The latter may be done by communication the corresponding shares, but interestingly, this may also be done without communication. This is possible since shares may be chosen so that computation devices which do not have access to the joint random number generator get a fixed value share, e.g., 0, whereas the devices that do have access can compute the corresponding shares, taking the fixed shares into account [Li; ¶115-117]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein the arithmetic sharing processing comprises: sharing local to-be-shared data with a next MPC computation party after encrypting the local to-be-shared data, and receiving and decrypting, as received decrypted data, data shared by a previous MPC computation party; combining the received decrypted data and the local to-be-shared data, to obtain the second data component; and performing, by each MPC computation party, arithmetic sharing processing in a cyclic order (the secret sharing algorithm is applied to the secure multi-party computation, the computing nodes may respectively split input data into shares and exchange the shares with each other. The computing nodes then may respectively perform an operation on locally collected shares to obtain an aggregated share corresponding to a final computation result of the secure multi-party computation. Eventually, the computing nodes merge all aggregated shares corresponding to the final computation result to obtain the final computation result, hereby completing the secure multi-party computation [Li; ¶81-84]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein: the second data component is a logical component; and comprising: converting, by the MPC computation party, the second data component from a logical component to an arithmetic component, to obtain a fifth data component, so as to perform MPC processing (the secret sharing algorithm is applied to the secure multi-party computation, the computing nodes may respectively split input data into shares and exchange the shares with each other. The computing nodes then may respectively perform an operation on locally collected shares to obtain an aggregated share corresponding to a final computation result of the secure multi-party computation. Eventually, the computing nodes merge all aggregated shares corresponding to the final computation result to obtain the final computation result, hereby completing the secure multi-party computation [Li; ¶81-84]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein: the n MPC computation parties comprise a first MPC computation party, a second MPC computation party, and a third MPC computation party; and the converting, by the MPC computation party, the second data component from a logical component to an arithmetic component comprises: performing, by each MPC computation party, zero-sharing processing, to obtain a sixth data component, wherein the sixth data component is an arithmetic component; performing, by the first MPC computation party, a first conversion and a second conversion on an arithmetic value by using a locally held logical component, to obtain two options, wherein the two options are arithmetic components; performing, by the first MPC computation party, an oblivious transfer to the third MPC computation party by using the two options; and performing, by each MPC computation party, arithmetic sharing processing by using a locally obtained arithmetic component as to-be-shared data, to obtain the fifth data component (the different cloud provider receiving fragments from the storage director which are segments into N parts, and in which there are N number of cloud providers [Lewis; ¶15, 17-24; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text], the secret sharing algorithm is applied to the secure multi-party computation, the computing nodes may respectively split input data into shares and exchange the shares with each other. The computing nodes then may respectively perform an operation on locally collected shares to obtain an aggregated share corresponding to a final computation result of the secure multi-party computation. Eventually, the computing nodes merge all aggregated shares corresponding to the final computation result to obtain the final computation result, hereby completing the secure multi-party computation [Li; ¶81-84]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lewis-Li combination discloses herein: the locally held logical component comprises a first logical component and a second logical component; the performing, by the first MPC computation party, a first conversion and a second conversion on an arithmetic value by using a locally held logical component comprises: generating, by the first MPC computation party, a random value by using an interaction key; and performing the first conversion and the second conversion by using the first logical component and the second logical component that are locally held, the random value, and a quantity of decimal places of a fixed-point number used for the MPC processing, to obtain the two options; and comprising: generating, by the second MPC computation party, the random value by using the interaction key (the different cloud provider receiving fragments from the storage director which are segments into N parts, and in which there are N number of cloud providers [Lewis; ¶15, 17-24; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text], the secret sharing algorithm as an example, the operation result may be the N.sup.th random number obtained by performing an operation on the N−1 random numbers and the private data held by the computing node together [Li; ¶53, 81-84]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lewis-Li combination discloses wherein: the second data component is an address-geocoded component; and comprising: converting, by the MPC computation party, the second data component from the address-geocoded component to a one-hot encoded component, to obtain a seventh data component, so as to perform the MPC processing (the private data S is integer data of 64 bits (i.e., P=2.sup.64), and the d−1 independent random numbers generated may all be values extracted from a value space of [0, 2.sup.64−1] [Li; ¶53, 81-84]. The motivation to reduce risk of privacy leak and build trust between MPC [Li; ¶8-10].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis-Li combination in view of Veeningen (US 20200396063 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lewis-Li combination discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein converting, by the MPC computation party, the second data component from the address-geocoded component to a one-hot encoded component comprises: determining a value of the ith bit of the one-hot encoded component by: for the jth bit of address geocoding, wherein j starts from 0, if the jth bit of a binary value of i is 1, determining that a current one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit is addr[0]; otherwise, determining that a current one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit is a complement value of addr[0]; increasing a value of j by 1, and if the jth bit of the binary value of i is 1, multiplying the current one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit by addr[j], and updating the current one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit by using a value obtained through multiplication; otherwise, multiplying the current one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit by a complement value of addr[j], and updating the current one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit by using a value obtained through multiplication; and performing the step of increasing a value of j by 1, until j is a highest-order bit of the address-geocoded component, to obtain a one-hot encoded component value of the ith bit, wherein addr[0] is a value of the 0th bit of the address-geocoded component, and addr[j] is a value of the jth bit of the address-geocoded component; however, Veeningen teaches these features.
In particular, Veeningen a secret-share may be a Shamir type secret-share. For example, to share a value t, a party i may receive a value of a polynomial F(i), for which F(0)=t. Instead of Shamir type secret sharing other types may be used. If the polynomial is of degree k, then any coalition of k+1 parties is sufficient to reconstruct the value t. Many variants are possible, including different types of secret sharing, one of the polynomials, e.g., C, has a higher degree, this means that it needs more points for interpolation than others. This can be resolved by first interpolating the low-degree polynomials, in this example A and B, and using that to interpolate further interpolated shares. For example, once we have A(ω.sub.i)=a.sub.i,B(ω.sub.i)=b.sub.i, for 0≤i≤n these can be used to compute A and B for further basepoints—as many as are needed to interpolate the higher degree polynomials, e.g., C. For example, one may compute interpolated values A(ω.sub.i)=a.sub.i,B(ω.sub.i)=b.sub.i, for n+1≤i≤2n−1. Once these values are available, the corresponding values of c.sub.i, for n+1≤i≤2n−1 can be computed, e.g., by performing the computation again. The latter computation may be done as multiparty computation, e.g., using computation unit 142. The additional computations to compute additional values for one or more of the variables are sometimes referred herein as shadow multiplications. Once the values, or the shares of the values, for the c.sub.i are available, the polynomial C may be interpolated using the additional interpolated shares. Again, it not actually necessary to compute the fitted polynomials, it is sufficient to compute the required values of these polynomials, in particular the interpolated shares for, e.g., a.sub.i,b.sub.i, for n+1≤i≤2n−1, and the interpolated computation A(s)B(s)=C(s); e.g., using MPC interpolation on the shares [Veeningen; ¶70-72, 95-98]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewis-Li combination in view of Veeningen with the motivation for improvement to the efficiency of the verifications, and may prevent leak information on the computations [Veengingen; ¶11].
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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 Nickerson can be reached on (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 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
1 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).