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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15, 21 and 23-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
1 - The limitations related to "generating, by the first server computer, a first tuple list of secret-shared tuples . . ." and "generating, by the second server computer, a second tuple list of secret-shared tuples" do not recite a "method of organizing human activity." Rather, the limitations pertain to a technical process for representing directed communications as a graph and for converting them into secret-shared tuples. The use of secret sharing constitutes a cryptographic mechanism that provides privacy and security, enabling distributed computation without disclosing sensitive communication data. Applicant respectfully submits that the limitations are rooted in computer-implemented activities and cryptographic data structures, rather than a "fundamental business practice or risk mitigation concept."
The Office asserts that while the claims no longer reference a particular business practice the claims may be characterized as a mathematical concept and data manipulation. The claims being rooted in cryptographic data structures and implemented by computers shows that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (cryptography) and merely implemented by generic computers (servers). The applicant’s argument fails to show how the technical process overcomes the rejection by reciting a technical improvement or some other meaningful limitation(s).
2 - The limitation related to "generating, by the first party computer and the second party computer and based on the first tuple list and the second tuple list, a secret-shared union tuple list" also does not recite a "method of organizing human activity." Rather, this limitation relates to a union operation, merging the privacy-preserving communication data from two parties into a secret-shared union graph. The union graph enables collaborative analysis without exposing any party's underlying data, and leverages cryptographic techniques for secure aggregation. The USPTO Office's 2019 Revised Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (2019 PEG) provides examples where claims directed to technical improvements in computer functionality or privacy-preserving computation are not abstract ideas. For instance, Example 41 makes clear that cryptographic techniques and secure computation are not methods of organizing human activity.
The Office maintains the position above that the limitation is directed to mathematical concepts and data manipulation. The claims recite generating X…corresponding to Y, which does not represent the asserted “enabling collaborative analysis without exposing any party’s underlying data”. While cryptographic techniques may be patent-eligible Example 41 does not indicate that all cryptographic techniques are patent-eligible.
3 - The limitation related to "detecting one or more cycles in the secret-shared union tuple list by performing, by the first server computer and the second server computer, a multi-party computation on the secret-shared union tuple list" similarly does not recite a "method of organizing human activity." Applicant again points to Example 41, which illustrates that cryptographic techniques and secure computation are not methods of organizing human activity. Similarly, Example 39 of the USPTO Office's 2019 Revised Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (2019 PEG) shows that computer-based analysis of data is not a method of organizing human activity.
The Office maintains its previous position regarding mathematical concepts. Additionally, the applicant fails to explain why the claim limitations are eligible aside from a general assertion that Examples 41 and 39 are instructive, i.e., how the claim limitations comport with the analysis provided by these examples.
4 - Here, both the specification and the claims disclose various features that relate to at least one improvement to computer functionality, as they improve efficiency and privacy in detecting cyclical communications in distributed network environments.
Amended claim 1 recites a specific technological improvement to computer system
functionality by enabling a fundamentally more secure method of distributed data analysis. As explained in paragraph [0005] of the PCT publication (reproduced below), conventional systems are unable to perform collaborative analyses when parties cannot share sensitive data.
[0005] However, in many cases, parties cannot share their respective directional electronic communication data with one another because the data may be sensitive or confidential. For example, two hospitals may be unable to share internal medical communication data with one another, as it may contain patient health information. As another example, two banks may be unwilling to share electronic communication data relating to financial transfers with one another, as such data may violate their customers' privacy. As such, parties are often unable to share the electronic communication data necessary to construct a corresponding graph. This in turn prevents graph based analysis of directional communications.
The Office asserts that the applicant describes a business problem and not a technical problem. The fact that parties cannot share sensitive or confidential information is a policy or legal decision not a technical one, i.e., there are no technical impediments to sharing sensitive or confidential information. Additionally, the limitations do not address increased security or privacy.
5 - Amended claim 1 overcomes this barrier by using an architecture in which at least two distinct server computers operate on cryptographic "secret shares" of data. As described in paragraph [0078] of the PCT publication (reproduced below), such architecture enables the computation to be performed without revealing any underlying sensitive information since no entity has the complete information.
The Office asserts that the architecture itself is not recited in a manner which confers the abilities asserted above. 0078 describes functions of multiple processors but fails to disclose the particular architecture which facilitates the claimed functions, i.e., the processors are generally and in a functional manner but fail to describe any particular hardware which enables the asserted functions.
6 - As shown above, amended claim 1 recites not merely an abstract method of organizing human activity, but rather an improvement to the functioning of computer networks and distributed systems. The technical features of secret sharing, distributed tuple generation, cryptographic unionization, and secure multi-party computation are specifically designed to overcome the limitations of conventional systems, which either require sharing sensitive data or cannot efficiently detect cyclical patterns across distributed data sources. The specification describes how these features improve the speed, scalability, and privacy of cycle detection in distributed environments, enabling secure analysis of communication graphs that would otherwise be infeasible.
The Office asserts again that cryptography and data security are abstract ideas and not technical features. The sharing of sensitive data is also not a technical problem, but a business problem as previously discussed. It is unclear how the present systems differ from conventional systems when the claims recite generic computer components. The claim limitations are recited functionally and do not describe any particular architecture which confers the asserted improvements.
As one example, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing robust technical solutions to privacy concerns in collaborative analysis of sensitive communication data, as explained above. In addition, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving scalability in distributed environments. Amended claim 1 recites "detecting one or more cycles in the secret-shared union tuple list by performing, by the first server computer and the second server computer, a multi-party computation on the secret-shared union tuple list, the one or more cycles comprising one or more directed cycles in the union graph." This limitation requires cycle detection to be performed as a multi-party computation by multiple server computers, which inherently enables distributed processing of large and complex communication graphs. By dividing the workload among several processors and computers, the multi-party computation architecture supports parallel and scalable analysis, which is not possible with conventional single-processor methods. Paragraph [0192] of the PCT publication confirms this improvement and describes how a multi-party computation network divides the secret-shared union tuple list among a pool of processors and executes iterative computation phases, thereby enabling scalable and distributed analysis across multiple parties and processors.
The Office asserts that the applicant has not invented distributed processing and the claims do not reflect the asserted increased privacy or scalability associated with the functional elements claimed. These technical improvements are not a function of the abstract idea, and the remaining additional limitations are merely generic computer elements.
Furthermore, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by expressly improving the speed of cycle detection in distributed network environments. Paragraphs [0052] and [0245] of the PCT publication describe the claimed features of dependent claims 3, 12, 14, and 23, including combining the Scatter and Gather steps into a single Scatter- Gather operation and substituting oblivious shuffling for conventional oblivious sorting. These improvements directly reduce the number of computational steps required, thereby accelerating the detection process. Thus, the claims provide a practical application of any judicial exception.
The Office again asserts that these are functional limitations attributed to the abstract idea and not to the hardware or software itself.
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) 1-16, 21 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. (Currently Amended) A method of detecting cyclical communications within a network, the method comprising performing, by a multi-party computation network comprising at least a first server computer and a second server computer:
generating, by the first server computer, a first tuple list of secret-shared tuples using a first list of tuples corresponding to first directed communications involving a first party computer and one or more other computers, wherein the first list of tuples comprises a first plurality of vertex tuples corresponding to a plurality of vertices in a first directed graph of communications and a first plurality of edge tuples corresponding to a plurality of edges in the first directed graph of communications;
generating, by the second server computer, a second tuple list of secret-shared tuples using a second list of tuples corresponding to second directed communications involving a second party computer and the one or more other computers, wherein the second list of tuples comprises a second plurality of vertex tuples corresponding to a plurality of vertices in a second directed graph of communications and a second plurality of edge tuples corresponding to a plurality of edges in the second directed graph of communications;
generating, by the first party computer and the second party computer and based on the first tuple list and the second tuple list, a secret-shared union tuple list,
detecting one or more cycles in the secret-shared union tuple list by performing, by the first server computer and the second server computer, a multi-party computation on the secret- shared union tuple list, the one or more cycles comprising one or more directed cycles in the union graph; and
providing, to the first party computer and the second party computer, a notification of cyclical communications in response to detecting the one or more cycles.
The underlined elements represent mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, as the claims are directed to detecting cycles…by performing multi-party computations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is performed by a network of computers amounting to adding the words apply it”, or the like. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are only the computers used to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is similarly rejected as the only difference is it is directed to a computer comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code which also amounts to adding the words “apply it”, as noted above.
Claims 2 and 3 further narrow the notification, part of the abstract idea. Claim 3 further narrows the mathematical computations, part of the abstract idea. Claim 4 further narrows the generation of the secret-shared tuples, part of the abstract idea. Claim 5 further describes the multi-party computation network and further narrows the cycle detection method. The multi-party computation network is part of the additional elements noted previously and are not further determined to be particular elements here. The cycle detection method is part of the abstract idea. Claim 6 further describes the network but fails to identify the components as particular. Claim 7 further narrows the union-tuple list, part of the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 9 narrow the secret-shared union tuple list, part of the abstract idea. Claim 10 further narrows the mathematical concept. Claim 11 narrows the concepts of claim 10. Claims 12 and 13 narrow the mathematical concept. Claims 14 and 15 also further narrow the mathematical concept. Claims 22-27 are similarly rejected.
As a whole and in combination, the claims comprise the abstract idea and the words “apply it” and are therefore not patent-eligible.
The examiner has reviewed the prior art provided by the applicant and finds, similar to the international search report, that the present claims are not disclosed by the prior art. Mostly the present claims differ by reciting the receipt of a secret-shared tuple list form a first and second party generated using financial transfer data of each party and using each parties computer. The secret-shared union tuple list comprising a plurality of secret-shared union tuples corresponding to a representation of a union graph.
A multi-party computation is performed on the secret-shared union tuple list to detect one or more directed cycles in the union graph which represents the possibility of fraud.
The prior art listed comprises many of the same terms as the claims such as tuple list, union tuple, garbled circuit, cycles, fraud, etc. and are generally directed to the same field but do not disclose the recited claimed subject matter either in whole or in combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights