DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
the claimed 1-20 invention is directed to-without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim 1 should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. 2019 PEG Analysis Step 1 (Statutory Category)
Claim 1 is directed to a “method,” which is a statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial Exception)
The claims 1/10/19 recite operations that fall within the abstract idea groupings of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (classification/labeling based on observed information), and/or mathematical concepts (comparison to baseline/thresholds), as identified in the 2019 PEG and MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Specific claim language evidencing an abstract idea includes:
“obtaining, by each secure multi-party computation (MPC) computation party of n secure MPC computation parties, a first data component sent by a data provider, wherein each first data component is one data component obtained after the data provider splits to-be-processed data into n data components, wherein n is an integer not less than 3; selecting m secure MPC computation parties of the n secure MPC computation parties to respectively perform a shuffling operation on respectively held first data components, to obtain a second data component, so as to perform an MPC operation, wherein 1 < m < n, and wherein m is a positive integer; and cyclically performing selecting m secure MPC computation parties to perform a shuffling operation on first data components, until each secure MPC computation party is not selected for at least one time to perform the shuffling operation, wherein m secure MPC computation parties selected each time are not completely identical.”
These limitations collectively recite the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it (including comparing an observed amount to a baseline), and classifying/assigning a risk label based on that analysis, which are activities that can be performed as mental processes or using mathematical operations and are characteristic of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data collection and analysis); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing audit logs to detect improper access as abstract); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical analyses and comparisons as abstract).
Conclusion (Prong One): The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
The claim’s additional elements are generic computing components performing their ordinary functions, as evidenced by:
“a data provider and multi parties” (implicitly) execution using “one or more processors, a computer system, computer, memory” and generic “medium” operations.
The claim does not recite:
Any specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, network protocols, or network devices (e.g., no specialized data structures, algorithmic improvements tied to computer performance, or protocol-level changes).
Any meaningful limitation tying the abstract processing to mathematical of the data shuffleing. Merely applying the abstract analysis using a generic “processing device” and “storing” the result does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP §2106.05(f); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354 (collecting/analyzing information and displaying/storing results insufficient).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept)
The only additional elements beyond the abstract idea are generic computing components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions: mathematical shuffling in the data structures.
These elements do not add any unconventional technical implementation, specialized hardware, or specific improvement in computer network operation. As an ordered combination, the claim recites a conventional sequence of data collection and analysis steps followed by storing a result. This fails to provide an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–226; MPEP §2106.05(d), (e).
Conclusion (Step 2B): The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As per claim 2, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim 2 should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 3, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 4, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 5, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 6, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 7, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 8, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 9, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 10, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 11, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 12, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 13, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 14, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 15, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 16, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 17, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 18, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 19, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
As per claim 20, this claim(s) recites(s) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim should have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1/10/19, those claims recite the phase “ data component”, it is not clear about the boundary of the component. Is this the data structure or the data pattern or block of data? Thus, those claims are indefinite.
As per claims 1/10/19, those claims recite the phase “claims 1, 10, 19 and any dependents incorporating “until each secure MPC computation party is not selected for at least one time” as unclear because the MPC is selected to perform shuffling operation but the secure MPC is not selecting again. Those claims are indefinite.
As per claims 1, 4 /8,10/13,17,18 and 19, those claims recite the variable m, n, and j are indefinite because there in not any definite value.
All the dependents’ claims are rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claims 1,10 and 19 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6,8, 10,19,15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bellala et al US 2018/0205707.
As per claim 1, Bellala discloses a computer-implemented method for data processing, comprising:
obtaining, by each secure multi-party computation (MPC) computation party of n secure MPC computation parties (0040 the multiple parties (e.g., party P1 310, P2 320, and P3 330) ), a first data component sent by a data provider (0027 the mediator M 140, i.e. a data provider, sends the set of prepared data, i.e. first data, to the Nth party and 0046 (a) Party, i.e. each MPC, Pi receives, obtaining, Ψ either from mediator M (if i=N), or from party P.sub.i+1 (if i≠N)), wherein each first data component is one data component obtained after the data provider splits to-be-processed data into n data components, wherein n is an integer not less than 3 (0026 The first operation involves sharding the data, i.e. first data, into a number of segments. The second operation involves recursively encrypting the data segments with the public keys of mediator M 140 and the multiple parties (assuming N parties));
selecting m secure MPC computation parties of the n secure MPC computation parties to respectively perform a shuffling operation on respectively held first data components, to obtain a second data component, so as to perform an MPC operation, wherein 1 < m < n, and wherein m is a positive integer ( 0027, in the anonymization phase, the Nth party P3 has been selected to perform decryption, then shuffle on the prepared data set [0048] (c) Pi randomly reorders the segments in Ψ.sub.i by using a random shuffle function π and obtain a randomized data set Ψ.sub.i=Ψ.sub.i[π(k)] for 1≤k≤(N*s), i.e. obtain a second data component.) ; and
cyclically performing selecting m secure MPC computation parties to perform a shuffling operation on first data components ( ([0027] the mediator M 140 sends the set of prepared data to the Nth party , the anonymization phase 170 is selecting (e.g., party P3 130 and P2 120 and P111 for decrypting and shuffled the set of the prepared data)., ), until each secure MPC computation party is not selected for at least one time to perform the shuffling operation (0027 then shuffle on the prepared data set and send randomly shuffled data to the (N−1) th party (e.g., party P2 120 ), wherein m secure MPC computation parties selected each time are not completely identical([0027] In the anonymization phase 170, the mediator M 140 sends the set of prepared data to the Nth party (e.g., party P3 130). Here, the Nth party indicates the party to which the last shared public key belongs to. Then, the Nth party can perform decryption, then shuffle on the prepared data set and send randomly shuffled data to the (N−1) th party (e.g., party P2 120). The (N−1)th party can then further decrypt and shuffle the data segments, and this process continues until the data is decrypted and shuffled by the 1st party (e.g., party P1 110). The parties are different P1, P2 and P3 shuffled the prepared data set, the P1 and P2 and P3 are not identical of the M secure parties and wherein each time data shuffle is performed by the different parties as such they are not identical).
As per claim 6. Bellala disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each time of cyclically performing selecting m secure MPC computation parties to perform a shuffling operation on first data components, a second data component obtained in a previous cycle is reallocated to the n secure MPC computation parties( 0040 the multiple parties (e.g., party P1 310, P2 320, and P3 330 and 0027 the mediator M 140, i.e. a data provider, sends the set of prepared data, i.e. first data, to the Nth party and 0046 (a) Party, i.e. each MPC, Pi receives, obtaining, Ψ either from mediator M (if i=N), or from party P.sub.i+1 (if i≠N) and 0026 The first operation involves sharding the data, i.e. first data, into a number of segments. The second operation involves recursively encrypting the data segments with the public keys of mediator M 140 and the multiple parties (assuming N parties)).
As per claim 8. Bellala discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Bellala discloses wherein: each secure MPC computation party comprises at least n secure MPC computation sub-parties, n is a positive integer, and n≥2(0040 the multiple parties (e.g., party P1 310, P2 320, and P3 330 and 0027 the mediator M 140, i.e. a data provider, sends the set of prepared data, i.e. first data, to the Nth party and 0046 (a) Party, i.e. each MPC, Pi receives, obtaining, Ψ either from mediator M (if i=N), or from party P.sub.i+1 (if i≠N) and 0026 The first operation involves sharding the data, i.e. first data, into a number of segments).
As per clams 10, and 19, those claims are rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 1.
As per clam 15, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 6.
As per clam 17, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellala and Prasad et al US 2015/0127924.
As per claim 2. Bellala discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing, by each secure MPC computation party, the shuffling operation on a first data component held by the secure MPC computation party, to obtain a second data component (0040 the multiple parties (e.g., party P1 310, P2 320, and P3 330) ), comprises:
generating a plaintext based on the first data component, wherein each element of the plaintext uniquely corresponds to one piece of sub data in the first data component (0027 the mediator M 140, i.e. a data provider, sends the set of prepared data, i.e. generate first data, to the Nth party);
shuffling elements of the plaintext, to generate a plaintext random sequence (0027 Then, the Nth party can perform decryption, then shuffled on the prepared data set and send randomly shuffled data to the (N−1)th party (e.g., party P2 120). The (N−1)th party can then further decrypt and shuffle the data segments, and this process continues until the data is decrypted and shuffled by the 1st party (e.g., party P1 110) and 0028“shuffling on the prepared data set ); and
performing the shuffling operation on the first data component based on the plaintext random sequence, to obtain the second data component(0027, in the anonymization phase, the Nth party P3 has been selected to perform decryption, then shuffle on the prepared data set [0048] (c) Pi randomly reorders the segments in Ψ.sub.i by using a random shuffle function π and obtain a randomized data set Ψ.sub.i=Ψ.sub.i[π(k)] for 1≤k≤(N*s), i.e. obtain a second data component ).
Bellala does not disclose the shuffling element of the plaintext of array.
However, Prasad discloses the shuffling element of the plaintext of array(0013 an apparatus for processing a shuffle instruction includes shuffle units including an upper shuffle unit and a lower shuffle unit configured in a hierarchical structure, each configured to generate a shuffled data element array by performing shuffling with respect to an input data element array, and wherein the shuffled data element array output from the lower shuffle unit is configured to be input to the upper shuffle unit as a portion of the input data element array of the upper shuffle unit).
Bellala and Prasad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of shuttle data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bellala to incorporate the teachings of Prasad and provide shuffling an array can be done to minimizes memory overhead for the large datasets.
Doing so would provide minimize the large datasets, thereby increasing memory storage.
As per clam 11, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 2.
As per clam 20, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-5,7,9,12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellala and Prasad et al US 2015/0127924 and Lee et al US 2020/0202198.
As per claim 3. Bellala and Prasad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Prasad discloses wherein shuffling elements of the plaintext array, to generate a plaintext random sequence, comprises:
generating a random array based on a random seed, wherein the random seed is obtained by m secure MPC participants through negotiation (0013 each configured to generate a shuffled data element array by performing shuffling with respect to an input data element array, and wherein the shuffled data element array output from the lower shuffle unit is configured to be input to the upper shuffle unit as a portion of the input data element array of the upper shuffle unit); and
the combination does not explicitly disclose
adjusting a location of each element of the plaintext array based on a value in the random array, to obtain the plaintext random sequence.
However, Lee discloses adjusting a location of each element of the plaintext array based on a value in the random array, to obtain the plaintext random sequence( 0077 crossbar unit 114 executes a first shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a row of the array. During a second stage for storing the output data, crossbar unit 114 executes a second shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a column of the array).
Bellala and Prasad and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of shuttle data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bellala to incorporate the teachings of Prasad, including the teaching of Lee and provide shuffling an array can be done to minimizes memory overhead for the large datasets.
Doing so would provide minimize the large datasets, thereby increasing memory storage.
As per claim 4. Bellala and Prasad and Lee disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, Lee discloses the value in the random array comprises a first-type element value and a second-type element value (0077 crossbar unit 114 executes a first shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a row of the array. During a second stage for storing the output data, crossbar unit 114 executes a second shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a column of the array ); and the adjusting a location of each element of the plaintext array based on a value in the random array, to obtain the plaintext random sequence Lee discloses wherein: the value in the random array comprises a first-type element value and a second-type element value ( 0077 crossbar unit 114 executes a first shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a row of the array. During a second stage for storing the output data, crossbar unit 114 executes a second shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a column of the array); and the adjusting a location of each element of the plaintext array based on a value in the random array, to obtain the plaintext random sequence comprises:
sequentially determining values of elements of the random array; if a value of the jth element of the random array is a first-type element value, interchanging the 1st element and the (i+1)th element that are of the plaintext array, wherein the jth element of the random array corresponds to the ith element of the plaintext array ( 0088 ); or if a value of the jth element of the random array is a second-type element value, performing no operation on the element of the plaintext array; and
obtaining the plaintext random sequence until the elements of the plaintext array are adjusted based on all element values in the random array ([0066] Rotation unit 110 is configured to obtain data from activation memory 108 for processing through a layer. As noted above, the data can be a set of activations that form a multi-dimensional data structure (e.g., an array or a tensor) associated with a portion of the digital image. This multi-dimensional data structure shall be henceforth referred to as, a basic tensor unit of input activations, such as an example b.sub.x×b.sub.y×b.sub.z, 3D tensor. The basic tensor unit, hereinafter, refers to the 3D tensor structure which can be loaded from the activation memory 108 at once and passed to the rotation unit 110, and it is the basic data unit processed in system 100. In the core 102, a layer of the neural network can process an input of a particular size and generate an output of another size. The output may be a set of activations that are stored at activation memory 108. The set of activations are later obtained using an address location of activation memory 108 and provided as an input to another layer of the neural network. In some implementations, rotation unit 110 is used to rotate the sets of activations accessed from address locations of activation memory 108).
Bellala and Prasad and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of shuttle data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bellala to incorporate the teachings of Prasad, including the teaching of Lee and provide shuffling an array can be done to minimizes memory overhead for the large datasets.
Doing so would provide minimize the large datasets, thereby increasing memory storage.
As per claim 5. Bellala and Prasad and Lee disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Prasad discloses wherein performing, by each secure MPC computation party, the shuffling operation on the first data component based on the plaintext random sequence, to obtain the second data component (0013 each configured to generate a shuffled data element array by performing shuffling with respect to an input data element array, and wherein the shuffled data element array output from the lower shuffle unit is configured to be input to the upper shuffle unit as a portion of the input data element array of the upper shuffle unit ), comprises: for each piece of subdata in the first data component,
adjusting a location of the subdata in the first data component based on a location of an element corresponding to the subdata in the plaintext random sequence, to obtain the second data component (Lee discloses 0077 he crossbar unit 114 references a stride value and/or a certain skip value for a subsequent layer (described below). In some implementations, the crossbar unit 114 is a sparse crossbar that uses at least one-stage or a two-stage process for storing output data. This one-stage or two-stage process can be used to store, in activation memory 108, an example output data array/tensor in accordance with at least a row and column format. For example, during a first stage for storing the output data, crossbar unit 114 executes a first shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a row of the array. During a second stage for storing the output data, crossbar unit 114 executes a second shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with a column of the array. In some cases, the crossbar unit 114 executes at least one shuffling operation to shuffle or adjust data associated with both a row and column of a tensor).
Bellala and Prasad and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of shuttle data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bellala to incorporate the teachings of Prasad, including the teaching of Lee and provide shuffling an array can be done to minimizes memory overhead for the large datasets.
Doing so would provide minimize the large datasets, thereby increasing memory storage.
As per claim 7. Bellala and Prasad and Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, Bellala discloses wherein: each secure MPC computation party obtains at least two different first data components; first data components held by the selected m secure MPC computation parties can comprise all the n data components into which the to-be-processed data are split (0040 the multiple parties (e.g., party P1 310, P2 320, and P3 330 and 0027 the mediator M 140, i.e. a data provider, sends the set of prepared data, i.e. first data, to the Nth party and 0046 (a) Party, i.e. each MPC, Pi receives, obtaining, Ψ either from mediator M (if i=N), or from party P.sub.i+1 (if i≠N) and 0026 The first operation involves sharding the data, i.e. first data, into a number of segments. The second operation involves recursively encrypting the data segments with the public keys of mediator M 140 and the multiple parties (assuming N parties) ); and the second data component is allocated to the n secure MPC computation parties by: generating n mask factors, wherein a sum of the n mask factors is 0; for each of n second data components obtained after the N data components are shuffled, computing a sum of each piece of subdata in the second data component and one mask factor, to obtain a masked second data component, wherein one second data component uniquely corresponds to one mask factor (0162] The 4×4×b.sub.z input activation 1402 can be sliced into b.sub.z 4×4×1 activations 1404. This example shows how the first input channel 1406 is distributed and fed to the MAC units and all other channels are also distributed in the same way. For 2×2 kx-ky parallelism, the 4×4×1 input activation 1406 is divided into multiple 2×2 pieces 1408 where each 2×2 piece represents an input window and each element in a 2×2 window is the neighboring data in the 4×4×1 window 1406. In some implementations, one or more 2×2 windows at the edges 1410, 1412, and 1414 are redundant to support last pixel window as in 908. These 2×2 windows can require the same data as its neighboring 2×2 window, but some of the data can be masked or zero'd out as described above. In the implementation of FIG. 14, input windows 1410 show the redundant windows that can be required for 2 kx parallelism and input windows 1412 are the redundant windows for 2 ky parallelism. Input window 1414 is the redundant window for 2×2 kx-ky parallelism. In 4×4 and 2×4 (4×2) kx-ky parallelism, different distribution patterns can be used to support a given kx-ky parallelism); and
allocating all obtained masked second data components to the n secure MPC computation parties, so that second data components held by any m computation parties can comprise all the n data components into which the to-be-processed data are split (0113 obtaining the example set of 8 inputs includes rotating the 8 inputs using the rotation unit 110 prior to loading the respective 8 inputs in each set to each cell of the MACs 512, 514, 518 at computation unit 112. MACs 512, 514, 518 correspond to the same MAC or, alternatively, may also correspond to different MACs. In other implementations, storing the output activations 522 includes using crossbar unit 114 to shuffle the memory address allocations for each output activation based on a bank assignment pattern generated using the control logic 106. As indicated above, the rotation unit 110 and crossbar unit 114 unit enable system 100 to obtain and store data for processing at neural network layer without bank conflict. In this manner, system 100 can achieve the efficiencies of parallelism and accelerated computations without the degraded performance that occurs from memory bank conflicts).
As per claim 9. Bellala and Prasad and Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, Bellala discloses wherein:
in each cycle, before the performing, by each secure MPC computation party, the shuffling operation on a first data component held by the secure MPC computation( 0027, in the anonymization phase, the Nth party P1, P2 and P3 has been selected to perform decryption, then shuffle on the prepared data set [0048] (c) Pi randomly reorders the segments in Ψ.sub.i by using a random shuffle function π and obtain a randomized data set Ψ.sub.i=Ψ.sub.i[π(k)] for 1≤k≤(N*s), i.e. obtain a second data component) party:
splitting the first data component into n first subdata components (Lee discloses [0162] The 4×4×b.sub.z input activation 1402 can be sliced into b.sub.z 4×4×1 activations 1404. This example shows how the first input channel 1406 is distributed and fed to the MAC units and all other channels are also distributed in the same way. For 2×2 kx-ky parallelism, the 4×4×1 input activation 1406 is divided, i.e. split, into multiple 2×2 pieces 1408 where each 2×2 piece represents an input window and each element in a 2×2 window is the neighboring data in the 4×4×1 window 1406. In some implementations, one or more 2×2 windows at the edges 1410, 1412, and 1414 are redundant to support last pixel window as in 908. These 2×2 windows can require the same data as its neighboring 2×2 window, but some of the data can be masked or zero'd out as described above. In the implementation of FIG. 14, input windows 1410 show the redundant windows that can be required for 2 kx parallelism and input windows 1412 are the redundant windows for 2 ky parallelism. Input window 1414 is the redundant window for 2×2 kx-ky parallelism. In 4×4 and 2×4 (4×2) kx-ky parallelism, different distribution patterns can be used to support a given kx-ky parallelism ); and simultaneously performing, by the n secure MPC computation sub-parties, the shuffling operation on the n first subdata components, to obtain an intra-group shuffled first data component corresponding to a current secure MPC computation party ( Bellala discloses 0013 each configured to generate a shuffled data element array by performing shuffling with respect to an input data element array, and wherein the shuffled data element array output from the lower shuffle unit is configured to be input to the upper shuffle unit as a portion of the input data element array of the upper shuffle unit ).
As per clam 12, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 3.
As per clam 13, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 4.
As per clam 14, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 5.
As per clam 16, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 7.
As per clam 17, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 8.
As per clam 18, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU S SHOLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7314. The examiner can normally be reached EST: 9am-5pm.
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, JORGE ORTIZ CRIADO can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/ABU S SHOLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496