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 action is responsive to application filed on 07/26/2024. In the application, preliminary amendments for claims filed on 07/26/2024 have been considered. In which
Claims 3-6, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 20 and 23 have been amended,
Claims 12-13, 19, 22 and 25-27 have been cancelled,
Claims 1, 21, 23 and 24 are independent, and
Claims 1-11, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application no.18/833,775 filed on 07/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed on 07/26/2024 is attached to the instant office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph numbers of the disclosure are missing. Examiner suggests to amend and resubmit the disclosure, by adding the paragraph numbers in beginning of the paragraphs to overcome this objection.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 14-18, 20 and 23-24 are objected to because of the following
informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 23 and 24, the claims in step (iii) recites term “the n one-time-pads” which lacks antecedent basis, and therefore should be corrected and read as “[[the]] n one-time-pads”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the claim in lines 1-2 recites “wherein the first set of data points and each of the second sets of data points has the same bit length.” which should be corrected and read as “wherein the first set of data points and each of the second sets of data points has [[the]] same bit length.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim in line 1 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising encoding the input data item...” which should be corrected and read as “The method of claim 1, comprising: encoding the input data item...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The method of claim 5, comprising splitting the input data item into a plurality of chunks before performing said encoding on each of said chunks.” which should be corrected and read as “The method of claim 5, comprising: splitting the input data item into a plurality of chunks before performing said encoding on each of said plurality of chunks.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The method of claim 6, comprising performing said encoding on each chunk and said encrypting at respective different locations.” Which should be corrected and read as “The method of claim 6, comprising: performing ... said encrypting at the respective different locations.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim in line 1 recites “The method of claim 8, comprising storing...” which should be corrected and read as “The method of claim 8, comprising: storing...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitation “retrieving from the plurality of different locations ...” which lacks antecedent basis, and therefore should be corrected and read as “retrieving from [[the]] a plurality of different locations...”, since the independent claim 1, on which claim 14 depends-on, only recites “respective different locations”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, the claim in line 1 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising applying...” which should be corrected and read as “The method of claim 1, comprising: applying...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 also recites limitation “... verify the integrity ...” which lacks antecedent basis, and therefore should be corrected and read as “... verify [[the]] integrity...”, since the claim previously does not recite the term “integrity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, the claim in line 1 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising applying...” which should be corrected and read as “The method of claim 1, comprising: applying...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 also recites limitation “... verify the integrity ...” which lacks antecedent basis, and therefore should be corrected and read as “... verify [[the]] integrity...”, since the claim previously does not recite the term “integrity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is drawn to “A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.”. The claimed term “the computer” lacks antecedent basis and therefore should be corrected and read as “when executed by [[the]] a computer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner also respectfully suggests the applicant to rewrite claim 23 in its independent form by including/incorporating all limitations from the method claim 1 as the claim 23 is directed towards A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “a computer-readable medium connected to the processing device configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processing device, performs the operations of:” which should be corrected and read as “a computer-readable medium connected to the processing device and configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processing device, performs [[the]] operations of:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Remaining dependent claims that depend-on the above objected claims are likewise objected since they depend on and/or carries the deficiencies of the objected parent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-11, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1-11, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because 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.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”), effective January 7, 2019, claims 1-11, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed towards secure distribution of data to different locations.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites method steps “(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value; (ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more, (iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads and (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations.”, as drafted, are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. For instance,
the claim limitation ““(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value;” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in human mind or by utilizing some additional physical steps e.g., a human using pen and paper. Such as, the steps of collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected data set or representing data via numeric values is considered a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or by using pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim limitation “(ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, generating one-time pads from pseudo-randomly generated data points is a fundamentally deterministic mathematical process (e.g., pseudo-random number generators), which falls under the category of mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation “(iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, encrypting data n times using n distinct one-time pads (OTPs) is considered as mathematical process rather than a novel technical implementation. The concept of using multiple random pads to encrypt data is essentially a restatement of the underlying mathematical principles of the one-time pad, which is classified as an abstract cryptographic concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations.” as drafted, falls under data organization ‘mental processes’ category of the abstract ideas. Such as, the method of keeping keys separate from data – even if encrypted- is a well-understood, routine, and is a conventional practice under data organization category of the abstract ideas. Thus, storing keys separately from the encrypted data by using conventional computer components (servers, data stores) without a specific technical improvement to the computer's functionality is considered an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or by using pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any additional element(s) that perform the claimed method steps. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element(s) that perform the claimed method steps. Thus, the claim is an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Further, the recited elements within dependent claims 2-11, 14-18 and 20 taken individually do not amount to “significantly more” than just the abstract idea as previously identified above. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the previously defined abstract idea. Some of the evidences of “significantly more” are a) improvement to another technology or field; b) applying judicial exception with or by a “particular machine’; c) transforming particular article/data into different state or thing; d) adding unconventional or non-routine steps, producing useful application; and e) other meaningful limitations beyond generic link to particular technological environment.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is directed towards a method and recites “A computer implemented method of recovering a securely stored anonymised data item, wherein the data item is represented by a first set of data points encrypted with n one-time-pads, each one-time-pad comprising a plurality n of random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each data point defined by a numeric value, the method comprising: retrieving from a plurality of different locations the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points; and decrypting the encrypted first set of data points n times using the n one time pads.”, as drafted, are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. For instance,
the claim limitation “method of recovering a securely stored anonymised data item, wherein the data item is represented by a first set of data points encrypted with n one-time-pads, each one-time-pad comprising a plurality n of random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each data point defined by a numeric value” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, the method of "recovering a securely stored anonymised data item" via one-time pads (OTPs) is a mathematical process (encryption/decryption) or a method of organizing human activity (data storage/retrieval). Data encryption with one-time pads (OTPs) is a fundamental mathematical process that is applied to the data being encrypted. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation “retrieving from a plurality of different locations the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points;” as drafted, falls under mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, retrieving encrypted data and one-time pads from multiple locations is characterized as generic "data collection" or "organization of information" and is considered a common, routine, and "well-understood" practice performed by conventional computing technology. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under "data collection" or "organization of information", but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation “decrypting the encrypted first set of data points n times using the n one time pads” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, the method of decrypting data sets with one-time pads (OTPs) is a fundamental mathematical process to encrypt/decrypt data sets. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any additional element(s) that perform the claimed method steps. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element(s) that perform the claimed method steps. Thus, the claim is an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is directed towards a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to carry out the method steps “(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value; (ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more, (iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads and (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations.”, of claim 1, as drafted, are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. For instance,
the claim limitation “(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value;” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in human mind or by utilizing some additional physical steps e.g., a human using pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer. Such as, the steps of collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected data set or representing data via numeric values is considered a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or by using pen and paper) but for the recitation of a generic computer, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim limitation “(ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, generating one-time pads from pseudo-randomly generated data points is a fundamentally deterministic mathematical process (e.g., pseudo-random number generators), which falls under the category of mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of a generic computer, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation “(iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, encrypting data n times using n distinct one-time pads (OTPs) is considered as mathematical process of the abstract ideas rather than a novel technical implementation. The concept of using multiple random pads to encrypt data is essentially a restatement of the underlying mathematical principles of the one-time pad, which is classified as an abstract cryptographic concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations.” as drafted, falls under data organization ‘mental processes’ category of the abstract ideas. Such as, the method of keeping keys separate from data – even if encrypted- is a well-understood, routine, and is a conventional practice under data organization category of the abstract ideas. Thus, storing keys separately from the encrypted data by using conventional computer components (servers, data stores) without a specific technical improvement to the computer's functionality is considered an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or by using pen and paper) but for the recitation of a generic computer, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites an additional element(s) of a generic computer to perform the claimed method steps, as described above. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of a generic computer to perform method steps “(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value; (ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more, (iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads and (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is directed towards a database management system for securely storing an anonymised data item, the system comprising: a plurality of data stores for storing one or more data entries; a processing device; and a computer-readable medium connected to the processing device configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processing device, performs the operations of: “(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value; (ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more, (iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads; and (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at a respective one of the plurality of data stores.”, as drafted, are directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. For instance,
the claim limitation ““(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value;” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in human mind or by utilizing some additional physical steps e.g., a human using pen and paper. Such as, the steps of collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected data set or representing data via numeric values is considered a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or by using pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer component, such as a processing device to perform the step of ‘obtaining’, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim limitation “(ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, generating one-time pads from pseudo-randomly generated data points is a fundamentally deterministic mathematical process (e.g., pseudo-random number generators), which falls under the category of mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer component, such as a processing device to perform the step of ‘generating’ then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation “(iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads” as drafted, falls under mathematical grouping of abstract ideas. Such as, encrypting data n times using n distinct one-time pads (OTPs) is considered as mathematical process rather than a novel technical implementation. The concept of using multiple random pads to encrypt data is essentially a restatement of the underlying mathematical principles of the one-time pad, which is classified as an abstract cryptographic concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mathematical process, but for the recitation of the generic computer component, such as a processing device to perform the step of ‘encrypting’, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
the claim limitation “(iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at a respective one of the plurality of data stores.” as drafted, falls under data organization ‘mental processes’ category of the abstract ideas. Such as, the method of keeping keys separate from data – even if encrypted- is a well-understood, routine, and is a conventional practice under data organization category of the abstract ideas. Thus, storing keys separately from the encrypted data by using conventional computer components (servers, data stores) without a specific technical improvement to the computer's functionality is considered an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or by using pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, such as a processing device to perform the step of ‘storing’, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recite an additional element(s) of a processing device to perform the claimed method steps, as described above. These element(s) in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of a processing device to perform method steps “(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value; (ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more, (iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times, each time using one of the n one-time-pads; and (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at a respective one of the plurality of data stores” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, such as the processing device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
As a result, the claims 1-11, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as the claims do not contain any 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. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Under Alice, that is not sufficient "to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
With regards to claim 23, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to 'software per se' without any structural limitations. Specifically, the claim calls for a “computer program” comprises instructions which can be executed on any general-purpose computer. The claim fails to recite a tangible physical structure (e.g., a specific computer readable storage medium, hardware, or specific memory implementation) that stores the computer program instructions and differentiates the claimed computer program from a mere intangible collection of instructions. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is directed solely to a computer program "software per se" without providing a tangible physical structure that stores the computer program instructions.
Examiner notes that applications specification (on page 10) describes an embodiment that relates to a non-transient computer- readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method for securely storing an anonymised input data item. Examiner respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend claim accordingly to make it statutory. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner also respectfully suggests the applicant to rewrite claim 23 in its independent form by including/incorporating all limitations from claim 1 as the claim 23 is directed towards A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11, 14, 17, 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawdsley et al. (US 9202085 B2; hereinafter “Maw”) in view of Hars; Laszlo (US 20160112196 A1; hereinafter “Hars”) and further in view of HOU, Fang-yong (CN 103425935 A; hereinafter “Hou”).
Regarding claim 1, Maw teaches A computer implemented method of securely storing an anonymised input data item, the method comprising (Maw in abstract describes a method of anonymising a database of personal data, and storing it separately from the other data. Such as, disclosed in col. 8 (lines 5-10), the cloud provider will host data in the form of UID sequence derived from both the demographic data from client financial deviation data):
(i) obtaining a first set of data points defining a representation of the input data item, wherein each data point is defined by a numeric value (Maw in col. 7 (lines 47-55) discloses that the process operates as a pseudonymising or obfuscation tool, by substituting elements of personal data and turning each of those elements into an identifier, which we call a Unique Identifier (UID). Each UID derives from a basic identifying data element, such as first name, surname, postcode or from financial data such as salary, expenditure, type of investment or value [...]. Each UID is made up of a multi-layered numerical code. (hereinafter, each UID represents the claimed data points));
(iii) encrypting the first set of data points n times (Maw in col. 7 (lines 63-67) and col. 8 (lines 1-4), discloses that further layers of encryption of the UIDs can also be added as will be described later [...]. In this way, the method and system incorporate additional security features and precautions such as multiple levels (e.g., n times) of non-conventional encryption techniques applied to such coded data prior to transmission both to and from the cloud. Or see also col. 24 (claim 9) and col. 25 (claim 10)),
(iv) storing each of Maw in col. 24 (lines 64-67; claim 9) discloses the method process of storing said encrypted data identifiers, and as disclosed in col. 2 (lines 17-33) wherein the data identifiers and the translation tables are stored independent to one another, preferably on different computing machines. In an implementation, disclosed in col. 9 (lines 31-33) and col. 10 (lines 1-5), the translation table (“stock cube" group of data) will be kept within an organization or on specific devices authorized by the organization, whereas the identifiers are pushed to the cloud).
However, the cited reference Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars teaches (ii) generating a plurality n of independently random or pseudorandom second sets of data points, each set comprising a one-time-pad, where n is two or more (Hars in para. [0009], discloses the process of randomly producing an m-bit output block of data from the n-bit input block of data. In some examples, m in the m-bit output block of data may be the same or different in number than n in the n-bit input block of data, and, as disclosed in para. [0014], the m-bit output block of data may be a multi-bit pad value, and producing the m-bit output block of data may include producing the multi-bit pad value based on a respective address of a memory location in a memory. In one or more examples, as disclosed in para. [0040, 0043, 0045], the length of the output blocks of data may be increased by repeating certain bits, where m in the m-bit output block of data may be the same in number as n in the n-bit input block of data, e.g., n=m=128),
(iii) encrypting the first set of data points, each time using one of the n one-time-pads and (iv) storing each of Hars in para. [0014 & 0045], discloses that in some examples in which the cipher is used for encryption, the output block of data may be a multi-bit pad value produced based on a respective address of a memory location in the memory 104. The pad value is then combined with a block of plaintext by an XOR operation to produce a block of ciphertext, and performing a write operation to write the block of ciphertext at the memory location having the respective address. The memory here may include a window of memory locations each of which stores a respective block of ciphertext that changes from memory location to memory location. Or see also para. [0036].).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system that includes encryption of data and protection of data stored in a memory of the computer system, and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
The combination of Maw as modified by Hars teaches the claimed process of storing each of the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations. The combination, however, fails to explicitly disclose but Hou teaches (iv) storing each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at respective different locations (Hou in para. [0014-0015] describes the process of encrypting a plurality of data blocks [Ciphertext of DBlocki = Padi XOR (Plaintext of DBlocki)] and writing the encrypted plurality of data blocks in the memory [Write (Ciphertext of DBlocki) to MEM], wherein the i-th (e.g., i is 0 to 2) data block is marked as DBlocki. The data block ‘DBlocki’ storage location in the MEM is determined by the address of the data block. The process also involves a Pad-Buffer that stores Pad values (PADi) for each of the corresponding data blocks (DBlocki).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hou, such modification would provide an enhanced data security technology, specifically so as to encrypt and decrypt the data stored in the block memory technology, which prevents illegal access to the stored data in a memory; Hou, Para. [0001-0002].
Regarding claim 2, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches the first set of data points and each of the second sets of data points has the same bit length (Hrs in para. [0043 and 0045] discloses that m in the m-bit output block of data may be the same in number as n in the n-bit input block of data. In one example in which n=m=128).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
Regarding claim 4, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches each of Hars in para. [0014 & 0045], discloses that in some examples in which the cipher is used for encryption, the output block of data may be a multi-bit pad value produced based on a respective address of a memory location in the memory 104. The pad value is then combined with a block of plaintext by an XOR operation to produce a block of ciphertext, and performing a write operation to write the block of ciphertext at the memory location having the respective address. The memory here may include a window of memory locations each of which stores a respective block of ciphertext that changes from memory location to memory location. Or see also para. [0036].).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system that includes encryption of data and protection of data stored in a memory of the computer system, and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
The combination of Maw as modified by Hars teaches the claimed process of wherein each of the encrypted first set of data points are stored in said respective different locations without being further encrypted. The combination, however, fails to explicitly disclose but Hou teaches wherein each of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points are stored in said respective different locations without being further encrypted (Hou in para. [0014-0015] describes the process of encrypting a plurality of data blocks [Ciphertext of DBlocki = Padi XOR (Plaintext of DBlocki)] and writing the encrypted plurality of data blocks in the memory [Write (Ciphertext of DBlocki) to MEM], wherein the i-th (e.g., i is 0 to 2) data block is marked as DBlocki. The data block ‘DBlocki’ storage location in the MEM is determined by the address of the data block. The process also involves a Pad-Buffer that stores Pad values (PADi) for each of the corresponding data blocks (DBlocki).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hou, such modification would provide an enhanced data security technology, specifically so as to encrypt and decrypt the data stored in the block memory technology, which prevents illegal access to the stored data in a memory; Hou, Para. [0001-0002].
Regarding claim 5, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, Maw further teaches comprising encoding the input data item according to a predetermined encoding protocol to generate said representation of the input data item (Maw in col. 7 (35-67), col. 8 (lines 1-10), discloses to apply encoding techniques on UID data to generate representation of the UID data. The coded UID data can only be reconstituted through the application in the hands of the authorized users with access to the residue within the translation table. And/or as further disclosed in col. 22 (lines 25-27), the cloud storage structures represent the UID encoded perturbations from such a profile.).
Regarding claim 11, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches said encrypting comprises applying a linear function to the first set of data points using the n one- time-pads (Hars in para. [0073], discloses an example in which the input block of data (D.sub.i) may be first mixed through the substitution and linear transformation layers to produce the updated block of data, which may then be mixed with the round key (k.sub.i / pad.sub.i). In another example, as shown for a round (i), an input block of data (D.sub.i) may be mixed (e.g., XOR-ed) with a round key (k.sub.i / pad.sub.i), and the result may be mixed through a substation layer including a plurality of s-boxes (S.sub.i), and a linear transformation layer including a permutation (P), to produce an updated block of data (D.sub.i+1)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system that includes encryption of data and protection of data stored in a memory of the computer system, and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
Regarding claim 14, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, Maw in col. 20 (lines 39-52) discloses the reassembly of the retrieved data stored on different machines/servers located within the appropriate geographical territories. Similarly, Hars in para. [0037] teaches that in each read operation, the data version value, data authentication tag and a block of ciphertext may be read at a memory location having a respective address. The respective keys with which the ciphertext and data authentication tag were produced may be regenerated using the data version value and respective address. The ciphertext may be decrypted with its key to produce its corresponding plaintext. However, Maw as modified by Hars fails to explicitly disclose but Hou further teaches comprising at predetermined intervals: retrieving from the plurality of different locations the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points, decrypting the encrypted first set of data points n times using the n one time pads (Hou in para. [0016] describes the process of reading-out address DBlocki for the data block i from the MEM to the current time T. The process involves: Reading step 1. searching from the Pad-Buffer corresponding to the DBlocki Padi hit, then skipping to read step 3 [...], Reading step 3. DBlocki read from the MEM and performing decryption of the read DBlocki, such as {Ciphertext from MEM Plaintext of DBlocki = Padi XOR (Ciphertext of DBlocki)}, Reading step 4. Repeats the reading operation steps 1-4 and using the address of the next data block to buffer padi into Pad-Buffer and prepare for the next time T + 1 data block decryption operation Counteri Func {addressJ + 1) + 1 -f) {SKey, Coun magaterium + 1) = padi + 1Buffer padi + 1.); and performing steps (i)-(iv) to re-encrypt the first set of data points (see rejection of claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hou, such modification would provide an enhanced data security technology, specifically so as to encrypt and decrypt the data stored in the block memory technology, which prevents illegal access to the stored data in the memory; Hou, Para. [0001-0002].
Regarding claim 17, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches comprising applying a hash function to the encrypted first set of data points to generate a hash of the encrypted first set of data points (Hars in para. [0054] discloses that the encryption unit may be configured to encrypt and decrypt data for all read and write operations with an appropriate memory 204 in response to read or write requests invoking the SMTU 206. And the data-hashing unit may be configured to produce data authentication tags for the encrypted data (ciphertext) read from and written to the memory. In an implementation, the data-hashing unit may be configured to employ a keyed hash function.); and applying a checksum function to the hash of the encrypted first set of data points to verify the integrity of the encrypted first set of data points (Hars in para. [0054 and 0082] discloses that the data-hashing unit may be configured to employ a keyed hash function to produce data authentication tags for the encrypted data (ciphertext) read from and written to the memory. In an implementation, the data-hashing unit 322 may be employed to verify the integrity of the ciphertext based on the ciphertext, key D and the data authentication tags produced for the encrypted data (ciphertext). For example, and as disclosed in Para. [0033], the data authentication tag may serve as a message authentication code, a short piece of information used to authenticate the ciphertext, and to detect data tampering and forgery. The tag may protect both the ciphertext's integrity as well as its authenticity, by allowing detection of any changes to it).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification provides an enhanced data security technique which may protect both the ciphertext's integrity as well as its authenticity, by allowing detection of any changes to it; Hars, Para. [0033].
Regarding claim 20, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Maw further teaches the first set of data points comprises a numerical representation of a sequence of words (Maw in col. 2 (lines 5-15) discloses that the data identifiers may refer to personal details such as name, contact details and address for example—i.e. alphanumeric data, and/or as disclosed in col. 5 (lines 17-19) discloses to determine the original numerical values of the particular pieces of information, and/or as disclose din col. 7 (line 55) each UID is made up of a multi-layered numerical code, and as further disclosed in col. 8 (lines 64-67) and col. 9 (lines 1-4), the group of identifiers grows in direct proportion to the number of customers. The translation table (“stock cube') is orders of magnitude Smaller as strings of data relating to things like name, address, occupation, etc. will repeat. This translation table is in essence a dictionary of phrases and numerical values and can be stored in any arrangement appropriate for storing such information.) and
However, Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches wherein the encrypted first set of data points comprises a cipher text (Hars in para. [0045] discloses an example in which the cipher is used for encryption, the output block of data may be a multi-bit pad value, and the SMTU 106 may be configured to produce the pad value based on a respective address of a memory location in the memory 104. The SMTU may then combine the pad value with a block of plaintext by an XOR operation to produce a block of ciphertext. Similar to the previous example, the SMTU may be further configured to perform a write operation to write the block of ciphertext at the memory location having the respective address. And the memory may include a window of memory locations each of which stores a respective block of ciphertext that changes from memory location to memory location.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system that includes encryption of data and protection of data stored in a memory of the computer system, and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
Regarding claim 21, the claim has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) for method claim 1, and are met by the references as discussed above. Claim 21 however also recites the following limitations, the method comprising: retrieving from a plurality of different locations the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points; and decrypting the encrypted first set of data points n times using the n one time pads, which are further disclosed by the cited prior art Hou. In particular, in para. [0016] of the Hou, it describes the process of reading-out address DBlocki for the data block i from the MEM to the current time T. The process involves: Reading step 1. searching from the Pad-Buffer corresponding to the DBlocki Padi hit, then skipping to read step 3 [...], Reading step 3. DBlocki read from the MEM and performing decryption of the read DBlocki, such as {Ciphertext from MEM Plaintext of DBlocki = Padi XOR (Ciphertext of DBlocki)}, Reading step 4. Repeats the reading operation steps 1-4, using the address of the next data block to buffer padi into Pad-Buffer and prepare for the next time T + 1 data block decryption operation Counteri Func {addressJ + 1) + 1 -f) {SKey, Coun magaterium + 1) = padi + 1Buffer padi + 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hou, such modification would provide an enhanced data security technology, specifically so as to encrypt and decrypt the data stored in the block memory technology, which prevents illegal access to the stored data in a memory; Hou, Para. [0001-0002].
Regarding claim 23, the claim is drawn to a computer program corresponding to the method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the rejection(s) set forth above with respect to the method claim 1 is equally applicable to the claim 23 of the computer program.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is drawn to a system and have limitations similar to the method claim 1, as rejected above. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawdsley et al. (US 9202085 B2; hereinafter “Maw”) in view of Hars; Laszlo (US 20160112196 A1; hereinafter “Hars”) and further in view of HOU, Fang-yong (CN 103425935 A; hereinafter “Hou”) and Orsini et al. (US 20120072723 A1; hereinafter “Orsini”).
Regarding claim 3, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Maw further teaches the different locations comprise geographically separated data centres (Maw in col. 8 (lines 14-30) and/or col. 22 (lines 50-64), discloses the storage of data in geographically separate locations, as illustrated in Fig. 3) and
However, the combination of Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose but Orsini teaches wherein said storing comprises storing the n one-time-pads on one or more servers at the geographically separated data centres (Orsini in para. [0362- 0371] discloses the storage of keys/OTPs and encrypted data to different locations on one or more data depositories or storage devices, that may be in different logical, physical or geographical locations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Orsini, such modification would provide an enhanced data security system in which the possibility of compromising the data is greatly reduced by preventing an attacker from beginning a crypto attack on any one of the stored ciphered data blocks; Orsini, Para. [0371, 0516].
Claims 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawdsley et al. (US 9202085 B2; hereinafter “Maw”) in view of Hars; Laszlo (US 20160112196 A1; hereinafter “Hars”) and further in view of HOU, Fang-yong (CN 103425935 A; hereinafter “Hou”) and Deutsch et al. (US 20190042369 A1; hereinadter “Deut”).
Regarding claim 6, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 5, Hars in para. [0040] discloses to produce a plurality of data blocks from an inputted block of data. Similarly, Hou in para. [0003] discloses that data stored in the memory is divided into data blocks, and each data block storage location in the memory determined by the corresponding address.
However, the combination of Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose “performing encoding on each of the data blocks (chunks)” but Deut teaches splitting the input data item into a plurality of chunks before performing said encoding on each of said chunks (Deut in Fig. 1 and associated para. [0016] discloses that data representing each of data blocks 108 may be stored in corresponding storage memory devices 104-1, 104-2, . . . 104-n. For example, data representing data block 108-1 may be stored in storage memory device 104-1, data representing data block 108-2 may be stored in storage memory device 104-2, and so on. In one example, DE manager 112 may perform a bit encoding operation on data block 108-1 and store the result in storage memory device 104-1, then (or simultaneously) perform a bit encoding operation on data block 108-2 and store the result in storage memory device 104-2, and so on for each data block of memory line 106. Or see also Fig. 6 and para. [0082] discloses that, at 606, the data blocks and the metadata blocks are encoded. At 608, the encoded data blocks and the encoded metadata block are provided for storage on a memory module.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Deut, such modification would provide an enhanced data security and prevent a block replay attack, as an adversary does not know the secret values and cannot easily find two different blocks that would produce the same parity after transformation.; Deut, para. [0089].
Regarding claim 7, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou and Deut teaches the method of claim 6, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose but Deut further teaches comprising performing said encoding on each chunk and said encrypting at respective different locations (Deut in Fig. 1 and para. [0028] discloses that the bit encoder/decoder 114 may encode and/or encrypt the data/metadata blocks prior to storing them on a memory module 102 that includes corresponding storage memory device 104-1 ... 104-n for each data block and management memory device 105 for the metadata block. And/or see also Fig. 6 and para. [0082] discloses that, at 606, the data blocks and the metadata blocks are encoded. At 608, the encoded data blocks and the encoded metadata block are provided for storage on a memory module (the memory module 102 that includes corresponding storage memory device 104-1 ... 104-n for each data block and management memory device 105 for the metadata block). In an embodiment, as disclosed in para. [0124], encoding the data blocks and the metadata block comprises encrypting each data block separately from each other and encrypting the metadata block separately from the first data blocks, as also depicted in Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Deut, such modification would provide an enhanced data security technique in which the data storage system is prevented from a block replay attack, as an adversary does not know the secret values and cannot easily find two different blocks that would produce the same parity after transformation.; Deut, para. [0089].
Regarding claim 8, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou and Deut teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches said splitting comprises generating an index comprising an identifier for each chunk (Hars in para. [0030-0031] discloses that the SMTU 106 may provide, with very high probability, a different encryption for every location in the memory 104 [...]. Each amount (e.g., 16 bytes) of plaintext data to be stored at a respective memory location at least within a window of memory locations may be encrypted with a unique encryption and tagged with a data version value and data authentication (e.g., index comprising an identifier), which may be stored at the memory location with the encrypted data (at times referred to as ciphertext). In some examples, the data version value may be derived from a global write counter (GWC) (e.g., 48-bit value) that indicates the number of encrypted write operations that have taken place such as in a current computing session. In other examples, the data version value may be derived using the number of write operations over multiple computing sessions, a time stamp, from a clock or the like. Or in yet other examples, the data version value may be derived from a clock. And as disclosed in para. [0013], whereas producing the data authentication tag depends on a respective address of a memory location in a memory.), and
wherein the method comprises recording respective storage locations of the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points generated with each said chunk (Hars in para. [0014] discloses the process of producing multi-bit pad values and combining the pad value with a block of plaintext by an XOR operation to produce a block of ciphertext, and performing a write operation to write the block of ciphertext at the memory location having the respective address. Similar to the prior example, the memory here may include a window of memory locations each of which stores a respective block of ciphertext that changes from memory location to memory location), and associating the recorded storage locations with a respective identifier of the index (Hars in para. [0030] discloses that the SMTU 106 may provide, with very high probability, a different encryption for every location in the memory 104 [...]. Each amount (e.g., 16 bytes) of plaintext data to be stored at a respective memory location at least within a window of memory locations may be encrypted with a unique encryption (e.g., by combining the pad value with a block of plaintext by an XOR operation to produce a block of ciphertext, as disclosed in para. [0014]) and tagged with a data version value and data authentication tag (e.g., a respective identifier of the index), which may be stored at the memory location with the encrypted data (at times referred to as ciphertext).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system that includes encryption of data and protection of data stored in a memory of the computer system, and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
Regarding claim 9, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou and Deut teaches the method of claim 8, Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches comprising storing the index at a storage location separate to the storage locations at which the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points are stored (Hars in para. [0013-0014] discloses an example for performing a write operation to write a block of ciphertext and the data authentication tag at the memory location having the respective address. The memory, then, may include a window of memory locations each of which stores a respective data authentication tag that changes from memory location to memory location. Similar to the prior example, the memory here may include a window of memory locations each of which stores a respective block of ciphertext that changes from memory location to memory location. The block of ciphertext is produced by combining the pad value with a block of plaintext by an XOR operation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Maw’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Hars, such modification would provide a high degree of data protection in a computer system that includes encryption of data and protection of data stored in a memory of the computer system, and further precludes an adversary's illicit access to the data stored in the memory of the computer system; Hars, Para. [0002-0003, 0045].
Regarding claim 10, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou and Deut teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Maw fails to explicitly disclose but Hars further teaches said splitting comprises setting a chunk size based on one or more of: (i) [[a past retrieval rate of the input data item, or]] (ii) a size of the input data item (Hars in para. [0040] discloses to produce a plurality of data blocks from the input block of data. In an implementation, the SMTU 106 may be configured to receive an n-bit input block of data, and produces an m-bit output block of data from the n-bit input block of data. The block size n may be arbitrary, and in various examples n may be 64, 128 or 256 bits; and m and n may be equal or unequal in number.).
Regarding claim 15, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose but Deut teaches comprising entropy scanning the encrypted first set of data points (Deut in Fig. 4 and para. [0053 & 0055] discloses that, at 414, one or more entropy checks/tests are performed on the encrypted data block (i.e., ciphertext of selected data block) read from the corresponding memory device 204. The flow moves to 418 where a determination is made as to whether all data blocks have been tested. If any data blocks have not yet been tested, an untested data block is selected at 408. For example, block 260-2 may be selected after testing on block 260-1 is complete. Or see also Fig. 5 and associated para. [0059-0078], the flowchart illustrates that entropy tests are being performed on encrypted data block(s) read from the memory device(s)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Deut, such modification would detect and correct data corruption, such as with error-correcting code (ECC) memory, and determine an overall health of a memory device or group of memory devices on which data is stored; Deut, para. [0001, 0078].
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawdsley et al. (US 9202085 B2; hereinafter “Maw”) in view of Hars; Laszlo (US 20160112196 A1; hereinafter “Hars”) and further in view of HOU, Fang-yong (CN 103425935 A; hereinafter “Hou”) and ZHANG, Zhi-min (CN 118018331 A; hereinadter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 15, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose but Zhang teaches comprising entropy scanning the encrypted first set of data points (Zhang in pdf page 2 (3rd – 5th paragraph) discloses the process of obtaining several plaintext intervals by dividing the plaintext data; obtaining the optimal encryption distribution parameter of each plaintext interval according to the distribution necessity, and encrypting by the chaotic sequence to obtain the ciphertext data; and performing entropy coding compression to the data and storing it.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Zhang, such modification provides a privacy protection method and/or system for large data cloud service, so as to solve the problem that the large data is overly disordered and not good for storage after the privacy protection is realized by encryption; Zhang in Abstract.
Regarding claim 16, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou and Zhang teaches the method of claim 15, wherein Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose but Zhang further teaches said entropy scanning is performed before storing the n one-time-pads and the encrypted first set of data points at the respective different locations (Zhang in pdf page 2 (3rd – 5th paragraph) and/or pdf page 6 (4th – 9th paragraphs) discloses the process of obtaining several plaintext intervals by dividing the plaintext data; obtaining the optimal encryption distribution parameter of each plaintext interval according to the distribution necessity, and encrypting by the chaotic sequence to obtain the ciphertext data; and performing entropy coding compression to the ciphertext data and storing it in a server of the large data cloud service; at the same time, for the key part, the optimal encryption distribution parameter of each plaintext interval and the initial value of the chaotic encryption are stored as the key).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Zhang, such modification provides a privacy protection method and/or system for large data cloud service, so as to solve the problem that the large data is overly disordered and not good for storage after the privacy protection is realized by encryption; Zhang in Abstract.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawdsley et al. (US 9202085 B2; hereinafter “Maw”) in view of Hars; Laszlo (US 20160112196 A1; hereinafter “Hars”) and further in view of HOU, Fang-yong (CN 103425935 A; hereinafter “Hou”) and Bogacz; Joseph (US 11386235 B1; hereinafter “Bog”).
Regarding claim 18, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou teaches the method of claim 1, Maw as modified by Hars in view of Hou fails to explicitly disclose but Bog teaches comprising applying a hash function to the first set of data points to generate a hash of the first set of data points; and applying a checksum function to the hash of the first set of data points to verify the integrity of the first set of data points (Bog in col. 5 (lines 35-54), discloses that the CGVS 100 may compute (at 110) a checksum based on one or more of the positional values and/or non-positional values of the set of data points that were selected (at 106) and/or tagged (at 108) for inclusion as part of the checksum computation. Accordingly, CGVS 100 may dynamically compute (at 110) a checksum with a customized level of integrity verification based on the user-identified identified data points of the point cloud. Computing (at 110) the checksum may include performing a hash over the data from each data point of the set of data points, wherein the data may include the various positional and non-positional values associated with each data point of the set of data points. The Message-Digest algorithm (“MD5”), a Secure Hash Algorithm (“SHA”), the Cyclic Redundancy Check (“CRC”) algorithm, and/or other algorithms may be used to compute the hash and/or generate the checksum based on the data from the selected set of data points. The checksum may be included with the point cloud, and may subsequently be used to verify whether any data of the set of data points within the point cloud has changed.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Maw-Hars-Hou’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Bog, such modification would provide a dynamic checksum generation and validation system that may use the checksum to verify integrity of the data associated with the set of data points; Bog, Abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose contact number is 571-272-1239 and email: ali.cheema@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:00AM – 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. 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.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights