DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/15/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 8-21 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 8-11 and 14-18 have been amended. Claims 4-7 are cancelled. Claims 19-21 are new.
No new IDS has been filed.
Examiner’s Note
Applicants are suggested to spell out the acronym (e.g., “MPC”) included at the first time in a claim set, and include information from figures 8-9 with related text into the claims to provide a better condition for an allowance.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, the applicants amended the claims and have, in page 10 of the remarks, argued that “… in view of the claim amendments … requests withdrawal of the rejection”. However, the current amendments to the claims do not overcome all previous rejections or cause the new rejections – see the 112 rejections section below for detail.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the currently amended limitations are in a condition of lack of clarity and/or capability for a prior-art examination. See the 112(b) rejections section below for detail.
Thus, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. Please see amended rejections below for the amended claims. This action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirements (e.g., the new matter issue).
Applicants have amended the claims 1, 8 (and dependent claims) to include subject matter “… the plurality of MPC operation apparatus are configured to include … stored in the memory to implement: a key generator … and a transmitter … the relay apparatus is configured to include … in the memory to implement: a transmitter … the user apparatus is configured to include … the memory to implement: a secret sharing generator … a transmitter … the plurality of MPC operation apparatus are configured to … a decrypter … an operator …” – see the claim 1; “… the user apparatus is configured to include a key generator … a transmitter that … a receptor that … a decrypter configured to …” – see claim 2; “… A relay apparatus … instructions stored in the memory to implements: a receptor that … a transmitter that …” – see the claim 8, however, these amended limitations/terms were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner noted that the specification describes that “fig. 10 depicts the user apparatus UXj, relay apparatus PX and participant apparatus MPCXi”; “fig. 11 shows the PX including storage part 203, control part 204, reception part A 201A, transmission part A 202A, transmission part B 202B and reception part B 201B”; “fig. 15 and paras. 0067 – 0073 describe the hardware resources” etc. However, these information do not provide to support or describe the amended limitations/terms stated above.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and 19 depend from the claim 1 or 8, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Applicants are suggested to review all claims for clarification (e.g., compatibility, capability, antecedent basis issues, etc.). Some of them (not all because there are too many) are indicated below.
Claim 1 recites:
“… the plurality of MPC operation apparatuses are configured to include at least a processor; and a memory …”, however, it is not clear how a plurality of MPC operation apparatuses includes one processor and one memory (e.g., other multi-party computation operation apparatuses do not have any computation capability because there are no processor or memory is there);
“… a key generator that generates a first encryption key, which servers as a public key in a public key cryptography, and a third encryption key, which serves as a secret key …”, however, it is not clear whether the third encryption key has any relationship (e.g., a part of the public-private key pair related to the public key, a separate secret/symmetric key of a symmetric key cryptosystem or else) – or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations;
“… at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor … a transmitter … at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor … a transmitter … at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor … a transmitter …”; however, it is not clear whether the component terms (e.g., at least a processor, a memory and a transmitter) included in different locations of the claim are the same or not (note: if they are the same, suggested to use “the at least a processor … the memory …” etc. from the second time appears in the claim);
“… a key generator (of the MPC) that generates a first encryption key … a secret sharing generator … an encrypter (of the user apparatus) that encrypts the secret shares by using each of the first encryption keys generated by the plurality of MPC operation … a transmitter that transmits the encrypted shares …”, however, it is not clear (1) whether “the (plurality of) first encryption keys” used by the encrypter has any relationship with “a (single) first encryption key” included before or not (note: if they don’t have any relationship, suggested to use “second encryption keys” – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations; (2) whether “the encrypted shares” have any relationship with “encrypting the secret shares” or not – or omitting necessary step/component that causes the limitations unclear;
“… the transmitter of the relay apparatus is configured to transmit the shares encrypted by each of the first encryption keys to the MPC operation apparatus from which the relay apparatus received the first encryption key …”, however, it is not clear (1) whether “the shares” has any relationship with “secret shares” included before or not; (2) whether encrypting the shares is performed by the each of the first encryption keys or using the each of the first encryption keys; (3) whether encrypting the shares is performed by the relay apparatus or not – or it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations;
“.. the plurality of MPC operation apparatus are configured to include a decrypter that decrypts encrypted shares by the first encryption key, by using the third encryption key, and an operator that performs an operation using the decrypted shares”, however, it is not clear (1) whether the decrypter decrypts encrypted shares by/using the first encryption key (e.g., the first encryption key as a decryption key); (2) whether “encrypted shares” is the same as “the shares encrypted by each of the first encryption keys” included before or not; (3) how to define the limitations, “… configured to include … an operator that perform an operation …” – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from the claim 1, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 8 recites:
“… a receptor that receives encrypted shares and respective first and the second encryption keys and a transmitter that transmits encrypted shares and the respective first and the second encryption keys for encryption, one of each for the user apparatus and the MPC operation apparatuses …”, however, it is not clear (1) the term, “encrypted shares” included in different locations are the same or not; (2) what “respective first …” is respecting to; (3) the term, “the second encryption keys” has an antecedent basis issue (e.g., not defining second encryption keys before); (4) what “one of each” means; (5) whether “the MPC operation apparatuses” are the same as “a plurality of MPC operation apparatuses” included before or not;
“… the relay apparatus is configured to receive the first encryption keys generated by the plurality of MPC … and further transmit the first encryption keys to the user apparatus and is configured to receive secret shares generated by the user apparatus and encrypted thereby using each of the first encryption keys …”, however, it is not clear (1) whether receiving by the relay apparatus is different from receiving by the receptor of the relay apparatus included before or not; (2) whether “the first encryption keys” are the same as “respective first … encryption keys” included before or not; (3) whether “receive secret shares … and encrypted thereby” is the same as “receives encrypted shares” or not (e.g., secret shares vs shares); (4) whether each of the secret shares is encrypted using each of first encryption keys or not – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations;
“… transmit the secret shares encrypted by each of the first encryption keys to the MPC operation apparatus from which the relay apparatus received the first encryption key”, however, it is not clear whether “each of the first encryption keys” is the same as “the first encryption key” or not.
Claims 9, 10 and 19 depend from the claim 8, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 11 (claim 15 includes similar limitations) recites:
“… communication between a user apparatus and a plurality of MPC operation apparatuses … including at least one user apparatus and a plurality of MPC operation apparatuses …”, however, it is not clear (1) whether “a user apparatus” is the same as “at least one user apparatus” or not; (2) whether “a plurality of MPC operation apparatuses” included in different locations are the same or not (note: if they are not the same, suggested to use “a first/second plurality of MPC operation apparatuses” etc.);
“… receive first encryption keys generated by the plurality of MPC operation apparatuses and further transmit the first encryption keys to the user apparatus …”, however, it is not clear (1) whether numbers of the first encryption keys are the same as the number of the plurality of MPC operation apparatuses or not (e.g., ten first encryption keys are generated by ten MPC operation apparatuses, etc.); (2) whether a plurality keys (e.g., the first encryptions keys) are transmitted to a single apparatus (e.g., the user apparatus) or not;
“… having the relay system receive secret shares generated by the user apparatus and encrypted thereby using each of the first encryption keys and transmit the secret shares encrypted by each of the first encryption keys to the MPC operation apparatus from which the relay system received the first encryption key”, however, it is not clear (1) whether the relay system is encrypting the received secret shares using the each of the first encryption keys or not (note: the first encryption keys are transmitted to the user apparatus before); (2) whether “each of the first encryption keys” are the same as “the first encryption key” or not; (3) the term, “the first encryption key” has an antecedent basis issue (e.g., not defining “a first encryption key” before).
Claims 12-14, 16-18, 20 and 21 depend from the claim 11 or 15, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Examiner’s Note Regarding Prior-art Rejections
As explained in the 112(b) rejections stated above, the current limitations are in a condition of lack of clarity and/or capability for a prior-art examination. However, a potential concept of the application can be found in:
Takiguchi et al. (US 2017/0310473 A1) teaches a relay device of a secure computation system to transfer a plurality of original data fragments corresponding to a plurality of secret sharing values of original data from a registration/analyzing device to a plurality of secure computation devices, etc.
Le Saint (US 11,108,748 B2) teaches the protocols for secure communication between two parties to allow a party to securely communicate with multiple parties using a single message, for example, the sending party can determine a unique shared secret for each recipient and encrypt data for a recipient using a session key generated from the corresponding shared secret, etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUNG T LWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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.
/MAUNG T LWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights