DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 14/708,091 filed on 05/08/2015.
Claims 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 25, 27 and 29 have been amended; claims 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 22-24, 26, 28, 30-32 and 34-48 have been cancelled; claims 1, 17 and 33 are independent claims. Claims 1-5, 7,9, 11-13, 15, 17-21, 25, 2, 29 and 33 have been examined and are pending in this application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO restrictions warranted at applicants initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO foreign priority claimed at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 11/06/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 11/06/2024 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the drawings filed on 11/06/2024 has been accepted.
Specification
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant's specification filed on 11/06/2024 has been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17-20, 25, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang): “Integrity Authentication for SQL Query Evaluation on Outsourced Databases: A Survey”, April 2021 in view of NPL Javid: “A practical privacy-preserving targeted advertising scheme for IPTV users”, July 2015.
Referring to claim 1, Zhang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a query (section 2.1, A client may send a query which is received by the service provider);
identifying, by the one or more processors, query results comprising data responsive to the query (section 2.1, a service provider upon receiving a request from a client, ex cutes the query, using a processing unit, identifies a corresponding query result and returning the query result to the client);
generating, by the one or more processors, a signature associated with the responsive data (section 2.3.1, gather signature…/anticipate generating a signature).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose comparing, by the one or more processors, the signature to at least one of historical query signatures or another signature associated with the responsive data; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, the query as an attack when the signature corresponds to at least one historical query signature or the other signature associated with the responsive data.
However, in an analogous art, Javid discloses comparing, by the one or more processors, the signature to at least one of historical query signatures or another signature associated with the responsive data; and identifying, by the one or more processors, the query as an attack when the signature corresponds to at least one historical query signature or the other signature associated with the responsive data (Javid: section 1, signature-based detection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Zhang with the method and system of Javid, wherein comparing, by the one or more processors, the signature to at least one of historical query signatures or another signature associated with the responsive data; and identifying, by the one or more processors, the query as an attack when the signature corresponds to at least one historical query signature or the other signature associated with the responsive data to provide users with a means for Only a legitimate advertiser, endorsed with so-called trap doors by the IPTV, can query the cloud server and access the query result (Javid: abstract).
Referring to claim 2, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein the responsive data includes a plurality of rows of data such that generating the signature associated with the responsive data further comprises: aggregating, by the one or more processors, the responsive data per row to generate an aggregated value; and generating, by the one or more processors, the signature for each aggregated value (Zhang: section 2.3.1, signature-based solution).
Referring to claim 3, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 2. Zhang further teaches wherein aggregating the responsive data is further aggregated per entity, and the method further comprises: concatenating, by the one or more processors, the aggregated value with an identifier associated with the entity to generate a concatenated value; and hashing, by the one or more processors, the concatenated value to generate a per-entity hash value (Zheng: section 3.1.1, concatenation operator and Merkie Hash Tree (MHT)).
Referring to claim 4, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 3. Zhang further teaches wherein generating the signature associated with the responsive data further comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more per-entity hash values for the aggregated values; and generating, by the one or more processors, the signature associated with the responsive data by hashing the one or more per-entity hash values (Zhang: section 2.3.1 and 3.1.1, signature based and hash value…).
Referring to claim 7, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 5. Zhang further teaches wherein generating the signature associated with the responsive data further comprises generating, by the one or more processors based on the entity and the statistical information associated with the entity, the signature for each row of data (Zhang: section 2.3.1, Signature based solution).
Referring to claim 9, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein at least one of: the signature is generated as a function or a hash value of the responsive data, or the signature is a representation of values of the responsive data (Zhang: sections 3.1.1-3.1.2, hash value…)
Referring to claim 11, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 9. Zhang further teaches wherein, when the signature is the representation of values: the representation is sets of pairs, and each pair of the sets of pairs maps a user to a corresponding value in the responsive data (Zhang: sections 3.1.1-3.1.2, hash value…).
Referring to claim 15, Zhang and Javid teach the claim 1. Zhang further teaches wherein the at least one historical query signature corresponds to a previously generated signature for data responsive to a previously received query (Zhang: abstract, sections 2.3-2.3.1, query execution and verifies).
Referring to claim 17, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 18, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 19, This claim is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 20, This claim is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 25, This claim is similar in scope to claims 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 33, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5. 12, 13, 21, 27 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 06/23/2026
Prosecution Insights