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 application and preliminary amendments filed on 09/17/2024. This applicant is a National Stage entry (371) of the International PCT application PCT/JP2022/013524.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-18 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner except for the documents, for which copy or English translation of the documents are not provided by the applicants.
Examiner’s Note
Applicants are suggested to include information from figures 8-9 with related text into the claims to provide a better condition for an allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 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 regarding terms, such as respective, further respective, first encryption key, second encryption key, shares, having … receive, etc., for clarification, compatibility, capability issues. Some of them are indicated below.
Claims 1 (claims 8, 11 and 15 include similar limitations) recites:
“… a respective first encryption keys … a reception part … a transmission part … a reception part … a transmission part … a second encryption key …”, however, it is not clear (1) whether the term “respective” is respecting to the user apparatus or not – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations; (2) whether “a reception part”, “a transmission part” included in different locations of the claims are the same or not; (3) how “a second encryption key” is different from the respective first keys (e.g., not respecting to the user apparatus) – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations;
“… the relay apparatus is further configured to received shares, encrypted …”, however, it is not clear whether the term, “shares” is the same as “secret shares”, “encrypted shares”, “decrypted shares” included before or not – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitations.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-14 and 16-18 depend from the claim 1, 8, 11 or 15, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 7, 10, 14 and 18 recite “… each of the respective first encryption keys is a first public key in public key cryptography, and the second encryption is a second public key in public key cryptography”, however, it is not clear (1) whether all of the respective first encryption keys are the same (e.g., the first public key) or not; (2) whether “public key cryptography” included in two different locations are the same or not (if they are not the same, suggested to use “a first public key cryptography”, “a second public key cryptography”, etc.) – it is not clear to define a boundary of the limitation/terms.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “… unit” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “unit” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “unit” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (e.g., a secret sharing part, an encryption part, a reception part, a transmission part, a key generation part, a decryption part, an operation part, etc.) that is coupled with functional language (e.g., that …) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “… a secret sharing part that divides … an encryption part that encrypts … a reception part that receives … a transmission part that transmits …”, “…a key generation part that generates … a decryption part that decrypts … an operation part that performs …” in claims 1-10. Therefore, the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function – see figures 11-13 and paragraphs 0012, 0051, 0088, 0090 of the disclosure.
Therefore, the claims 1-10 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. (US 2017/0310473 A1) in view of Le Saint (US 11,108,748 B2).
As per claim 1, Takiguchi teaches a multi-party computation system [see fig. 1], comprising at least one user apparatus (e.g., the registration device 21 and/or the analyzing device 24), a plurality of MPG operation apparatuses (e.g., the secure computation devices 23-1 to 23-N), and a relay apparatus (e.g., the relay device 12) that relays communication between the user apparatus and the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses (see fig. 1), wherein
the user apparatus is configured to include a secret sharing part that divides information to generate secret shares of the information, an encryption part that encrypts the secret shares, a reception part that receives respective first encryption keys for encrypting shares and encrypted shares of MPG operation results, and a transmission part that transmits encrypted shares and a second encryption key to the relay apparatus [figs. 2A, 5, 7; par. 0054, lines 1-21; par. 0056, lines 1-8; par. 0062, lines 1-27; par. 0063, lines 34-43 of Takiguchi teaches the user apparatus is configured to include a secret sharing part (e.g., the secret sharing unit) that divides information to generate secret shares of the information (e.g., ai, where i =1, …, N), an encryption part (e.g., the encrypter) that encrypts the secret shares, a reception part (e.g., the communication unit) that receives respective first encryption keys (e.g., K1(i), K2(i), where i =1, …, N) for encrypting shares and encrypted shares of MPG operation results, and a transmission part (e.g., the communication unit) that transmits encrypted shares and a second encryption key to the relay apparatus – note: the encryption keys, K1(i), K2(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12],
the relay apparatus is configured to include a reception part that receives encrypted shares, the respective first and the second encryption keys, and encrypted shares of MPG operation results and a transmission part that transmits encrypted shares, the respective first and the second encryption keys, and encrypted shares of MPG operation results [figs. 3, 5-7; par. 0034, lines 1-8; par. 0062, lines 22-27; par. 0063, lines 1-6, 32-38 of Takiguchi teaches the relay apparatus is configured to include a reception part (e.g., the communication unit) that receives encrypted shares (e.g., αi, where i = 1, …, N), the respective first and the second encryption keys (e.g., the encryption keys, K1(i), K2(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12 – see above and the teaching of Le Saint below), and encrypted shares of MPG operation results (e.g., the encrypted registration notifications) and a transmission part that transmits encrypted shares (e.g., αi, where i = 1, …, N), the respective first and the second encryption keys (e.g., the encryption keys, K1(i), K2(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12 – see above and the teaching of Le Saint below), and encrypted shares of MPG operation results (e.g., the encrypted registration notifications)],
the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses are configured to include a reception part that receives encrypted shares and the second encryption key, a decryption part that decrypts encrypted shares, and an operation part that performs an operation using decrypted shares [figs. 4, 5-7; par. 0058, lines 1-9; par. 0063, lines 1-20 of Takiguchi teaches the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses are configured to include a reception part (e.g., the communication unit) that receives encrypted shares (e.g., αi, where i = 1, …, N) and the second encryption key (e.g., the encryption keys, K1(i), K2(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12 – see above and the teaching of Le Saint below), a decryption part (e.g., the decoder) that decrypts encrypted shares (e.g., αi, where i = 1, …, N), and an operation part (e.g., the reflection manager) that performs an operation (e.g., the response or the registration notification) using decrypted shares],
the relay apparatus is further configured to receive the respective first encryption keys generated and further transmit the respective first encryption keys to the user apparatus and is configured to receive secret shares generated by the user apparatus and encrypted thereby using the respective first encryption keys and the second encryption key generated by the user apparatus and transmit the encrypted secret shares and the second encryption key to the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses, and the relay apparatus is further configured to receive shares, encrypted using the user apparatus's second encryption key, of the results of operations performed by the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses and transmit the shares to the user apparatus [figs. 3, 5-7; par. 0034, lines 1-8; par. 0062, lines 1-27; par. 0063, lines 1-43 of Takiguchi teaches the relay apparatus is further configured to receive the respective first encryption keys generated and further transmit the respective first encryption keys to the user apparatus (e.g., the encryption keys, K1(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12 – see above and the teaching of Le Saint below) and is configured to receive secret shares (e.g., αi, where i = 1, …, N) generated by the user apparatus (e.g., the registration device 21 and/or the analyzing device 24) and encrypted thereby using the respective first encryption keys (e.g., the encryption keys, K1(i)) and the second encryption key generated and transmit the encrypted secret shares and the second encryption key to the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses (e.g., the encryption keys, K2(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12 – see above and the teaching of Le Saint below), and the relay apparatus is further configured to receive shares (e.g., the encrypted response or registration notifications), encrypted using the user apparatus's second encryption key, of the results of operations performed by the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses (e.g., the secure computing devices) and transmit the shares to the user apparatus (e.g., the registration device)].
Although Takiguchi teaches performing encryptions and decryptions/decoding using keys (known the public key cryptosystem or the symmetric key cryptosystem) shared between a transmitter (e.g., the registration device or the secure computing devices) and receiver (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device) – see above, Takiguchi does not explicitly disclose a key generating part for generation of the keys (e.g., the first encryption keys or the second encryption key) by the receivers (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device).
However, Le Saint teaches a key generating part for generation of the keys (e.g., the first encryption keys or the second encryption key) by the receivers (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device) [col. 3, lines 37-43 of Le Saint teaches a key generating part for generation of the keys (e.g., the encryption keys or the public key) by the receiver and sharing the keys with the transmitter and decrypting using generated private key].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takiguchi with the teaching of Le Saint to include generating of the public/private key pair for the encryptions/decryption processes because it provides extended protocols for secure communication between two parties to allow a party to secure communicate with multiple parties - see col. 1 of Le Saint.
As per claim 2, Takiguchi in view of Le Saint teaches the multi-party computation system according to Claim 1.
Takiguchi further teaches wherein
the user apparatus is configured to divide information to generate secret shares of the information and encrypt the secret shares using the respective first encryption keys received from a relay system and is configured to receive shares, encrypted using the user apparatus's second encryption key, of MPG operation results [figs. 2A, 5, 7; par. 0054, lines 1-21; par. 0056, lines 1-8; par. 0062, lines 1-27; par. 0063, lines 34-43 of Takiguchi teaches the user apparatus is configured to divide information to generate secret shares of the information and encrypt the secret shares using the respective first encryption keys received from a relay system and is configured to receive shares, encrypted using the user apparatus's second encryption key, of MPG operation results – see also rejections to the claim 1], and
the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses are configured to receive shares encrypted using the respective first encryption keys transmitted by the relay apparatus, decrypt the encrypted shares, and perform an operation using the decrypted shares [figs. 4, 5-7; par. 0058, lines 1-9; par. 0063, lines 1-20 of Takiguchi teaches the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses are configured to receive shares encrypted using the respective first encryption keys transmitted by the relay apparatus, decrypt the encrypted shares, and perform an operation using the decrypted shares – see also rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 3, Takiguchi teaches the multi-party computation system according to Claim 1.
Takiguchi further teaches wherein the relay apparatus is configured to transmit the respective first encryption keys generated to the user apparatus in response to a request from the user apparatus [figs. 3, 5-7; par. 0062, lines 1-21 of Takiguchi teaches wherein the relay apparatus is configured to transmit the respective first encryption keys (e.g., the encryption keys, K1(i), where i =1, …, N are transmitted/received between the registration device 21 and the secure computation device 23i via the relay device 12 – see above and the teaching of Le Saint below) generated to the user apparatus in response to a request from the user apparatus – see also rejections to the claim 1].
Although Takiguchi teaches performing encryptions and decryptions/decoding using keys (known the public key cryptosystem or the symmetric key cryptosystem) shared between a transmitter (e.g., the registration device or the secure computing devices) and receiver (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device) – see above, Takiguchi does not explicitly disclose a key generating part for generation of the keys (e.g., the first encryption keys or the second encryption key) by the receivers (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device).
However, Le Saint teaches a key generating part for generation of the keys (e.g., the first encryption keys or the second encryption key) by the receivers (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device) [col. 3, lines 37-43 of Le Saint teaches a key generating part for generation of the keys (e.g., the encryption keys or the public key) by the receiver and sharing the keys with the transmitter].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takiguchi with the teaching of Le Saint to include generating of the public/private key pair for the encryptions/decryption processes because it provides extended protocols for secure communication between two parties to allow a party to secure communicate with multiple parties - see col. 1 of Le Saint.
As per claim 4, Takiguchi teaches the multi-party computation system according to Claim 1.
Takiguchi further teaches wherein the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses are configured to further decrypt shares, which are encrypted using the respective first encryption keys transmitted by the relay apparatus, using further respective third encryption keys [par. 0063, lines 1-43 of Takiguchi teaches wherein the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses (e.g., the secure computation devices 23i, where I = 1, …, N) are configured to further decrypt shares, which are encrypted using the respective first encryption keys (e.g., K1(i)) transmitted by the relay apparatus, using further respective third encryption keys (e.g., K1(i), used for the decoding/decryption) – see the teaching of Le Saint for decrypting using a private key in the rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 5, Takiguchi teaches the multi-party computation system according to Claim 1.
Takiguchi further teaches wherein the user apparatus is configured to further decrypt shares of MPG operation results, which are encrypted using the second encryption key, using further respective fourth encryption keys [par. 0063, lines 1-43 of Takiguchi teaches wherein the user apparatus is configured to further decrypt shares of MPG operation results, which are encrypted using the second encryption key (e.g., K2(i)), using further respective fourth encryption keys (e.g., K2(i), used for the decoding/decryption by the registration device 21) – see the teaching of Le Saint for decrypting using a private key in the rejections to the claim 1].
As per claim 6, Takiguchi teaches the multi-party computation system according to Claim 1.
Takiguchi further teaches wherein when the relay apparatus receives encrypted shares of the results of operations performed by the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses and transmits the shares to a user apparatus without decrypting them, the user apparatus is configured to decrypt the encrypted shares of the MPG operation results [par. 0063, lines 1-43 of Takiguchi teaches wherein when the relay apparatus receives encrypted shares (e.g., the encrypted response or registration notifications) of the results of operations performed by the plurality of MPG operation apparatuses and transmits the shares to a user apparatus without decrypting them, the user apparatus is configured to decrypt the encrypted shares of the MPG operation results – see the teaching of Le Saint for decrypting using a private key in the rejections to the claim 1]. See also rejections to the claim 1
As per claim 7, Takiguchi teaches the multi-party computation system according to Claim 1.
Takiguchi further teaches wherein each of the respective first encryption keys is a first public key in public key cryptography, and the second encryption key is a second public key in public key cryptography.
Although Takiguchi teaches performing encryptions and decryptions/decoding using keys, such as the respective first encryption keys (e.g., K1(i)), and the second encryption key (e.g., K1(i)) by known the public key cryptosystem or the symmetric key cryptosystem shared between a transmitter (e.g., the registration device or the secure computing devices) and receiver (e.g., the secure computing devices or the registration device) – see above, Takiguchi does not explicitly disclose the keys (e.g., the respective first encryption keys and the second encryption key) used for encryptions are public keys in public key cryptography.
However, Le Saint teaches keys (e.g., the respective first encryption keys and the second encryption key) used for encryptions are public keys in public key cryptography [col. 3, lines 37-43 of Le Saint teaches keys (e.g., public keys of the public/private key pair) used for encryptions are public keys in public key cryptography].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takiguchi with the teaching of Le Saint to include processes of the public/private key pair for the encryptions/decryption processes because it provides extended protocols for secure communication between two parties to allow a party to secure communicate with multiple parties - see col. 1 of Le Saint.
Claims 8-10 are apparatus claims that correspond to the system claims a part of 1, 3 and 7, respectively, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 11-14 are method claims that correspond to the system claims a part of 1, 2, 3 and 7, respectively, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 15-18 are medium claims that correspond to the system claims a part of 1, 2, 3 and 7, respectively, and are analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
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