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 communication (preliminary amendment) filed on 11/25/2024.
Status of claims in the instant application:
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending.
Claim 9 has been canceled.
Claims 12-21 have been newly added.
Claims 10-11 have been amended.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/094057 filed on 05/12/2023. This application also claims benefit to CHINA 202210582406.X filed on 05/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/25/2024 have been considered, and a signed copies of the IDS forms have been attached to this office action.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 11/25/2024 have been inspected, and it’s in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Specification
Specification filed on 11/25/2024 has been inspected and it’s in compliance with MPEP 608.01.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the method according to claim 2, wherein the service data comprise privacy information of the target user and/or device information of the terminal device”.
The use of “and/or” in the same claim limitation creates contradiction for the terms before and after “and/or”, as “and” requires both the terms, but “or” requires only one of the two terms recited, and the other term becomes optional. Therefore the use of “and/or” in the same claim limitation makes the claim language ambiguous/indefinite.
Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 13 also has similar issue as claim 3, and hence similarly rejected.
Appropriate correction required.
*** Note: For examination purposes the claim limitation is interpreted to recite “The method according to claim 2, wherein the service data comprise privacy information of the target user [[and/or]] or device information of the terminal device”.
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 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, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: CN 111431707 A to LI et al. (hereinafter “LI”) in view of Pub. No.: CN 111177252 A to WANG, JIA-BIN (hereinafter “WANG”).
Regarding Claim 1. (Original) LI discloses A service processing method, applied to a terminal device, wherein the terminal device comprises a trusted execution environment (LI, Abstract: … The invention claims a service data information processing method, device, apparatus and readable storage medium, the method comprising: deploying a first device of the first trusted application environment can obtain the service data information associated with the target user …), and the method comprises:
obtaining a service processing instruction initiated by a target user for a target service by using a target application (LI, Abstract: … deploying a first device of the first trusted application environment can obtain the service data information associated with the target user. the service data information into the first trusted application environment, the first trusted application environment deployment in the first trusted application, obtaining the access information associated with the target user, in the first trusted application environment based on the access information to access the first trusted application … wherein the service data obtaining module comprises: the first instruction obtaining unit …);
obtaining service data of the target service by using a trusted application in the trusted execution environment (LI, Abstract: … deploying a first device of the first trusted application environment can obtain the service data information associated with the target user. the service data information into the first trusted application environment …);
processing the service data in the trusted execution environment based on a prestored service processing policy of the target service, to obtain a corresponding processing result (LI, Abstract: … obtaining the access information associated with the target user, in the first trusted application environment based on the access information to access the first trusted application; by private key of the target user in the first trusted application, the hash value of the service data information to be signed to obtain the signature information and signature information is used for indicating the blockchain node upon successful verification signature information, writing the service data information blockchain …), wherein service data restored based on the processing result are different from the obtained service data (LI, Para [0010]: … a first writing unit for decrypting to obtain service data information associated with the target user from the encrypted data information based on the first authority, and the writing operation of the service data information with a first trusted application of the first trusted application environment …); and
However, LI does not explicitly teach, but WANG from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“providing the processing result to the target application, wherein the processing result is used to trigger the target application to display a processing result of the target service to the target user based on the processing result (WANG, Abstract, Para [0025]: … The invention claims a service data processing method and device; the method comprises: receiving the service side for data operation request of the target service, the data operation request. for the request to the service data corresponding to the target field in the data protocol for executing data operation of the target type in response to the data operation request, based on the target field, for verification of the data operation authority to the service party, to obtain the check result, when the check result shows that the service has authority for executing the data operation to the service data … according to a blockchain network of the client node 600, the application client where client indicates service data management centre … blockchain network of consensus in the node 600 receives from the client node (e.g., a home shown in FIG. 6 to the client node of the service subject 200 210) submitted by different service subject of transaction (service subject such as 6 shown in FIG. 200), to execute the transaction and storing the first detection result target page, various intermediate result or final result of carrying out a transaction can be returned to the client node of the service subject to display …)”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of WANG into the teachings of LI, because it discloses that, “The embodiment of the invention claims a service data processing method and device, capable of supporting rights management field, improve degree of authority management accuracy of each character (WANG, Summary)”.
Regarding Claim 10. (Currently Amended) This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 1, and hence similarly rejected as claim 1.
LI also discloses a computing device with processor, memory with instruction for processing by then processor (LI, Para [0010]: … The embodiment of the invention claims a computer device, comprising a processor, a memory … a memory for storing the computer program, the processor is used for method call computer program to perform the method of the embodiment of the invention …).
Regarding Claim 11. (Currently Amended) This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 1, and hence similarly rejected as claim 1.
LI also discloses a computing device with processor, memory with instruction for processing by then processor (LI, Para [0008]: … The embodiment of the invention claims a computer device, comprising a processor, a memory … a memory for storing the computer program, the processor is used for method call computer program to perform the method of the embodiment of the invention …).
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: CN 111431707 A to LI et al. (hereinafter “LI”) in view of Pub. No.: CN 111177252 A to WANG, JIA-BIN (hereinafter “WANG”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 20230195601 A1 to Poornachandran et al. (hereinafter “Poornachandran”).
Regarding Claim 2. (Original) The combination of LI-WANG discloses the method according to claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach, but Poornachandran from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“wherein processing the service data in the trusted execution environment based on a prestored service processing policy of the target service (Poornachandran, Abstract, Para [0066-0067]: : … An apparatus to facilitate synthetic data generation for enhanced microservice debugging is disclosed. The apparatus includes one or more processors to: load a filter for a synthetic data generator for a service deployed in a datacenter system, the filter configured for the service based on service policies …), to obtain a corresponding processing result comprises:
in the trusted execution environment, inputting the service data into a pre-trained service model of the target service, processing the service data by using the service model, to obtain a corresponding output result, and using the output result as the processing result (Poornachandran, Abstract, Claims 1, 5, 7: … one or more processors to: load a filter for a synthetic data generator for a service deployed in a datacenter system, the filter configured for the service based on service policies; prioritize synthetic parameters of the filter based on service parameters used to model microservices deployed for the service … the one or more processors provide a trusted execution environment (TEE) for a controller of the service to generate the synthetic dataset using the synthetic data generator … wherein generating the filter further comprises the one or more processors to apply a machine learning analytics engine to the original infield dataset to generate a trained model based on data aggregation using one or more of classification, inference, contextual analysis, or semantics mapping, the trained model used as the filter to generate the synthetic dataset at the synthetic data generator …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Poornachandran into the combined teachings of LI-WANG, because it discloses that, “the classification engine 421 can perform rule-based data classification on the past raw infield data 410. For example, the past raw infield data 410 from the variety of input sources is classified with appropriate trained dataset for accurate inference (Poornachandran, Para [0079])”.
Regarding Claim 3. (Original) The combination of LI-WANG-Poornachandran discloses the method according to claim 2, LI further discloses, “wherein the service data comprise privacy information of the target user (LI, Abstract: … obtaining the access information associated with the target user, in the first trusted application environment based on the access information to access the first trusted application; by private key of the target user in the first trusted application …) and/or device information of the terminal device.”
Regarding Claim 12. This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 2, and hence similarly rejected as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13. This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 3, and hence similarly rejected as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19. This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 2, and hence similarly rejected as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 14-18 and 20-21 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements (including all objections and rejections) or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Examiner further notes that, should the Applicant amends claims, all the independent claims be made similar in scope.
Reasons for allowance will be furnished upon allowance.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160350561 A1; Poiesz et al.: Poiesz discloses A computing device that executes one or more trusted execution environment (TEE) processes in a TEE of a processor. The one or more TEE processes cryptographically protect a secret and a policy. The policy specifies a plurality of conditions on usage of the secret. A particular non-TEE process generates a request whose fulfillment involves an action requiring use of the secret. Responsive to the request, one or more non-TEE processes determine whether a first subset of the plurality of conditions is satisfied. Responsive to the first subset of the plurality of conditions being satisfied, the one or more TEE processes determine that a second, different subset of the plurality of conditions is satisfied. Responsive to determining the second subset of the plurality of conditions is satisfied, the one or more TEE processes use the secret to perform the action.
US 20220269816 A1; Qian et al.: Qian discloses A method that includes obtaining, by an application executing on a processor of an electronic device, user data of a user, generating a representation of the user data, applying local differential privacy to the representation of the user data, to generate a transform of the representation of the user data, sending the transform of the representation of the user data, to a service provider via a network and receiving, from the service provider, via the network, service data based on the transform of the user data. The service data includes a user-specific output based on the transform of the user data. The application executes outside of a trusted execution environment (TEE) of the electronic device. The transform of the representation of the user data is generated in the TEE of the electronic device.
US 20170214530 A1; Seibel et al.: Seibel discloses A trusted execution environment on a computing device within an enterprise, whether owned by the enterprise or the employee/user, allows invocation of trusted enterprise applications without hindering external or non-enterprise apps from running on the same computing device. Each of the trusted apps can interact with other trusted apps on the same enterprise computing device in a trusted manner such that other apps or untrusted network connections are prevented for access to the trusted apps. The computing device, however, also executes non enterprise applications which operate independently of the enterprise apps in the same address space using the same unmodified operating system as the enterprise apps on the computing device. The trusted execution environment therefore restricts interprocess communication to be only within the set of enterprise apps and also permits unimpeded operation of other apps under the same OTS (off the shelf) operating system.
US 20250363223 A1; ELOUL et al.: ELOUL discloses Systems and methods for federated model validation and data verification are disclosed. A method may include: (1) receiving, by a local computer program executed by client system, a federated machine learning model from a federated model server; (2) testing, by the local computer program and using a policy service, the federated machine learning model for vulnerabilities to attacks; (3) accepting, by the local computer program, the federated machine learning model in response to the federated machine learning model passing the testing; (4) training, by the local computer program, the federated machine learning model using input data comprising local data and outputting training parameters; (5) identifying, by the local computer program using the policy service, accidental leakage and/or contamination by comparing the training parameters to the input data; and (6) providing, by the local computer program, the training parameters to the federated model server.
US 20170264644 A1; MIHAN et al.: MIHAN discloses Methods and systems to provide application platform security enforcement. A distributed system communicates between a plurality of remote devices and at least one secured server to facility providing a secured service. The distributed system may comprise a remote communication server and a plurality of security layer components where the plurality of remote devices connect through respective ones of the security layer components. Upon detection of a security breach by a first remote device, the distributed system determines potential devices at risk from the plurality of remote devices, analyzing risk factors for commonalities. A lock down of the first remote device and the devices at risk is instructed. Analysis of risk factors examines whether the first remote device and other remote devices communicate via a same security layer component, are geographically proximate; and/or are associated at the user level, for example are proximate users in a social network graph. Reactivation is also provided.
US 20180176775 A1 ; Obaidi; Ahmad Arash: Obaidi discloses techniques that can provision network functional modules for execution in trusted execution environments of portable computing devices. A monitoring application of a portable computing device can validate a trusted execution environment of the portable computing device, determine a present operational capacity of the portable computing device, and transmit indications of the validation and the present operational capacity to a control node via an authenticated connection. The application can detect a remote computing device on one network and determine that the remote device has a trusted execution environment. The application can report the computing device to the control node on another network. A network functional module can receive a request and determine that the portable computing device cannot perform an operation of the request. The module can select another computing device and transmit an indication of the operation to the selected computing device via an authenticated connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHABUB S AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-0364. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached on 571-270-1050. 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.
/MAHABUB S AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights