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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s filing on July 06, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 11, 17 and 20 were amended. As a result, claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 11 and 20 are in independent form.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, obviate the specification objection. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment regarding claim 11 does not obviate the claim rejection, therefore the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s amendment regarding claim 1 does not obviate the claim rejection, therefore the claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant’s amendment regarding claim 7 obviates the claim rejection, therefore the claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101 Rejection
On pages 10-11 Applicant argues that “Claim 1 recites a technical solution to that problem by structuring both stored content representations and query representations as encrypted fingerprints and then comparing those encrypted fingerprints directly through logical operations to compute a similarity metric. That arrangement improves the functioning of the computer system itself because the server can identify relevant encrypted documents without decrypting the underlying content during the comparison stage”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 11 recites a mathematical concept because generating encrypted query fingerprints produces encrypted numerical representations of the query, performing logical operations applies arithmetic or comparison functions to the encrypted query and entity fingerprints, computing a similarity metric calculates a numerical measure of correspondence between those representations and identifying relevant fingerprints uses that calculated metric to classify entity fingerprints. Collectively, these limitations recite mathematical processing of encrypted data representations to calculate similarity relevant representations, and performing the calculations on encrypted rather than the plaintext values does not change their mathematical character.
35 USC § 112(b) Rejection
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 112(b) rejection because the amended claim 1 does not specify any type of logical operation, or how such operations are applied to the encrypted fingerprints to compute the similarity metric. Therefore, the claimed “logical operations” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
35 USC §§ 102 and 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) are rejected, under 35 USC 103(a), have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter.
On pages 12-13 of remarks, Applicant’s argues that “The present claim therefore recites a comparison architecture that is absent from the cited reference" in the amended in claims 1, 11, and 20 “A system comprising:… generate one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query; perform, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints, one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query; and return a query result that allows the client device to retrieve an encrypted document, from the plurality of encrypted documents, corresponding to an encrypted entity fingerprint of the one or more encrypted entity fingerprints identified as relevant to the query”.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 11, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rogers et al. (US 9,552.494 B1).
As to the dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 and 20, these claims remain rejected by virtue of dependency to their independent claims.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC § 103.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) — 2019 PEG pq. 53
Claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 11 recites the following types of subject matter that are judicial exceptions: Abstract idea — mathematical concepts and data manipulation/analysis:
“…generating one or more encrypted query fingerprints …; performing, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints, one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query; …returning a query result
Claim 11 recites a mathematical concept. Specifically, generating encrypted query fingerprints produces encrypted numerical or binary representations of query information. Performing logical operations on the encrypted query and entity fingerprints applies comparison to those representations. Computing a similarity metric calculates a numerical measure of correspondence between the represented query and entity information. Identifying relevant entity fingerprints based on the similarity metric and returning a result that allows a client device to retrieve an encrypted document. Accordingly, these limitations recite mathematical processing of encrypted data representations. The use of encrypted rather than plaintext values does not alter the mathematical character of the recited operations.
Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 11 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “receiving encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints …; receiving a query regarding information in the encrypted documents; …, data store”, “client device”, “entity fingerprints”, “logical operations” and “homomorphic encryption private key”. The additional limitations of receiving encrypted entity … and ... receiving a query regarding information…., these elements merely represent generic computer components performing generic computer functions and constitutes post-solution activity. The claim does not recite a particular manner of receiving, generating the entity fingerprints, a specific homomorphic encryption scheme, or a specific cryptographic improvement.
Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
Claim 11 does not include an inventive concept
the additional elements of the claim, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a “data store, client device, and processors”, these components perform routine computer functions. The steps of receiving, analyzing, and returning data are generic computing functions. Moreover, the recitation of “homomorphic encryption” is functional, without specifying any particular implementation that would provide an inventive concept. The claim therefore amounts to: applying an abstract idea using generic computer components which does not constitute significantly more.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 12 recites the following types of subject matter that are judicial exceptions:
“responsive to receiving the query result, the client device is configured to use the homomorphic encryption private key to decrypt the relevant encrypted document to retrieve the unencrypted documents that are relevant to the query”. Although the claim recites a “client device”, and “homomorphic encryption private key”, these elements merely represent generic computer components performing generic computer function, and recite at a high level of generality without specifying any particular technological implementation.
These limitations describe identifying a relevant document based on a query… decrypting information, and retrieving relevant information, could be performed as a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites a “client device”, and “homomorphic encryption private key”, these elements merely represent generic computer components performing generic computer function, and recite at a high level of generality without specifying any particular technological implementation.
The computer elements simply perform routine functions such as: use the homomorphic encryption private key to decrypt the relevant encrypted document to retrieve the unencrypted documents that are relevant to the query. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality. The use of a generic processor to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 12, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a “client device”, and “homomorphic encryption private key”, “decrypt the relevant encrypted document” and “retrieve the unencrypted document”, these components perform routine computer functions, such as: accessing data, decrypting, encrypting.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 13 depends from claim 11 and further recites:
“wherein the client device stores a software application that is in communication with the computing server, the software application published by a party that controls the computing server, and the software application is configured to manage the homomorphic encryption private key and decryption of the plurality of encrypted documents.”
The steps of managing a private key and decrypting encrypted documents, fall within category of mental process.
Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 13 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “client device”, and “software application”, and “computing server”, these elements merely represent generic computer components performing generic computer functions.
Further, the claim doe not recite any specific implementation of homomorphic encryption or how such management improves computer functionality. The use of a generic processor to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 13, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a “client device”, and “software application”, and “computing server”, these components perform routine computer functions, such as: accessing data, performing mathematical calculations, and processing data units.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and further recites:
“wherein the client device stores a software application that is in communication with the computing server… extracting an entity from plaintext of an unencrypted document; converting the entity into an entity embedding … comparing the entity embedding to a reference embedding; generating an entity fingerprint …; and encrypting the entity fingerprint to generate the encrypted entity fingerprint.”
Claim 14 recites the following types of subject matter that are judicial exceptions: Abstract idea — mental processes and data manipulation/analysis:
These limitations describe collecting information, analyzing information using mathematical relationships and producing a result, specifically, converting the entity into an entity embedding that represents the entity in a latent space, involve mathematical operations, which can be performed mentally.
Accordingly, claim 14 recites mental process and mathematical concepts, which are abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “client device”, and “software application”, “encrypting” the fingerprint, these elements merely represent generic computer components performing generic computer functions.
The computer elements simply perform routine functions such as: the “reference embedding”, or “encrypting the entity fingerprint” is recites a high level of generality, without specifying how the encryption improves processing.
Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 14, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a “extracting, converting the entity, comparing the entity, generating an entity fingerprint; and encrypting the entity”, these elements represent routine computer functions. The use of “client device”, and “software application”, “encrypting”… reflects generic computer implementation.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and further recites:
“wherein the entity fingerprint is using a homomorphic encryption public key corresponding to the homomorphic encryption private key”.
The additional limitation of 15 using a homomorphic encryption public key does not change the character of the claim.
These limitations describe associating the public key with a corresponding private key, which could be performed as a mental process or by a human using pen and paper to analyze and organize data.
Accordingly, claim 15 recites mental process and mathematical concepts, which is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “homomorphic encryption public key”, and “homomorphic encryption private key”, without specifying any particular algorithm. The claim does not describe how the homomorphic encryption improves computing functionality.
The claim does not impose any meaningful limit on the abstract idea beyond implementing it in a generic cryptographic context.
Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 15, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a homomorphic encryption public key”, and “homomorphic encryption private key”, these components perform routine and conventional cryptographic concept.
The claim does not recite any specific homomorphic encryption scheme. Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 16 depends from claim 11 and further recites:
“wherein the query received by the computing server is encrypted”.
The additional limitation of 16, “encrypting the query” does not change the character of the claim.
These limitations describe associating a query encryption, which could be performed as a mental process or by a human using pen and paper to analyze and organize data.
Accordingly, claim 16 recites mental process and mathematical concepts, which is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “computing server”, this element merely represents generic computer component performing generic computer functions.
The requirement that the query is “encrypted”, specifies a data format, not a technological improvement.
Therefore, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 16, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites the query is “encrypted”, at a high level of generality, without any specific technical implementation.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and further recites:
“wherein the query received by the computing server comprises one or more encrypted query fingerprints that can be compared to the encrypted entity fingerprints”.
The additional limitation of 17, “encrypted query fingerprints” , comparison of those fingerprints to “encrypted entity fingerprints”. These limitations correspond to comparing data representations to determine similarity, which is a mathematical operation and mental process. Such as, comparing the fingerprints to stored fingerprints.
These limitations describe associating a query encryption, which could be performed as a mental process or by a human using pen and paper to analyze and organize data.
Accordingly, claim 17 recites mental process and mathematical concepts, which is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “computing server”, and “encrypted query fingerprints” , comparison … “encrypted entity fingerprints”, these elements merely represent generic computer components performing generic computer functions.
The computer elements simply perform routine functions such as: comparing encrypted query fingerprints with encrypted entity fingerprints. The claim does not recite any specific algorithm and does not improve computer functionality.
Therefore, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 17, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a “computing server”, and “encrypted query fingerprints” , comparison … “encrypted entity fingerprints”, these components representing information as fingerprints and comparing them is a routine in data processing and does not include any specific or unconventional cryptographic technique.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further recites:
“wherein the one or more logical operations comprises calculating a similarity metric between an encrypted query fingerprint and an encrypted entity fingerprint”.
The additional limitation of claim 18 “calculating a similarity metric” recite mathematical operation. Specifically, comparing fingerprints and computing a metric is a form of mathematical relationship.
Such operations fall within the category of mathematical concepts, which are abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a “calculating a similarity metric”, “encrypted query fingerprints” , and “encrypted entity fingerprints”, these elements are data representations, not improvements to technology.
Thus, the claim merely applies a mathematical concept using generic computer components and does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality.
Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 18, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a “calculating a similarity metric”, “encrypted query fingerprints” , and “encrypted entity fingerprints”. The use of encryption is recited at a high level of generality and does not include any specific or unconventional technique.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and further recites:
“wherein calculating the similarity metric between the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint comprises: passing, bitwise, values in the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint into one or more logical circuits; and accumulating bits outputs of the one or more logical circuits.”.
The additional limitations of claim 19 further describe: “bitwise processing of values”, and “accumulating outputs” to compute a result. These steps corresponds to mathematical operations (bitwise, logical operations) and aggregation of results, which are mathematical operations.
Such operations fall within the category of mathematical concepts. Additionally, these steps can be performed by a human using pen and paper.
Accordingly, claim 19 recites mathematical concepts and mental process, which are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - 2019 PEG pq. 54
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations of claim 19 further describe: “one or more logical circuits”, “bitwise processing of values”, these limitations do not limit the abstract idea because, the term “logical circuits” is recited at a high level of generality and does not specify any particular hardware structure. The operations performed by the logical circuits (bitwise processing of values) are generic implementations of mathematical operations.
Thus, claim 19 amounts to applying mathematical operations using generic computing or circuit components and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception?) - 2019 PEG pq. 56
The claim does not include an inventive concept.
The additional elements of claim 19, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites “bitwise processing of values”, “accumulating outputs”, and “logical circuits”, these components perform routine computer functions. “Logical circuits” are generic hardware components commonly used to perform such operations. The claim does not recite any specific circuit architecture or technical improvement.
Such operations are commonly performed by general-purpose computers and do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 1 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations “a computing server comprising one or more processors and memory storing code comprising instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 4 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 4. Claim 5 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 6. Claim 7 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 7. Claim 8 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 8. Claim 9 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 10 recites additional limitations “a computing server”, “one or more processors”, “memory” and “code comprising instructions”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 includes all the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claim 20 recites the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 11. Claim 20 recites the additional limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer code comprising instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors…”, which in Step 2A, Prong 2, the limitations are merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite. Claim 1 recites “perform, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints, one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query;”. The cited limitation is unclear because the claim fails to identify what constitutes the claims “logical operations”. The claim does not specify whether the operations are arithmetic, aggregation, comparison or another type of logical operation, or how such operations are applied to the encrypted fingerprints to compute the similarity metric. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed “logical operations” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Independent claims 11 and 20 and their dependent claims are similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox-Epstein et al. (US 2023/0318809 A1), hereinafter Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers et al. (US 9,552.494 B1), hereinafter Rogers.
Regarding claim 1, Fox-Epstein discloses a system comprising (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0125):
a data store storing a plurality of encrypted documents corresponding to a plurality of unencrypted documents (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0034, the server 160 encrypts the server database 192 to generate a server encrypted database such that each database entry of the server encrypted database is server-encrypted and is capable of being decrypted by a corresponding client derived OPRF value);
a client device storing a homomorphic encryption private key capable of decrypting the encrypted documents (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0061, the client 202 generates client-derived decryption keys using each server encrypted identifier (226)) and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0072, the server 204 can maintain the server-encrypted decryption keys by creating a database (referred to as a server OPRF database) that stores the server-encrypted decryption keys. In such implementations, the server encrypted database stores the server-encrypted keys and for each server-encrypted key, a corresponding server-encrypted decryption key) and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0046, the client 150 after receiving the server encrypted query results 194, decrypts (or removes) the server encryption using the corresponding client-derived OPRF values 166 to generate the plaintext values of the server encrypted retrieved query results 194) and ()and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0034, the server 160 generates the server encrypted database using a deterministic homomorphic encryption technique… the AES key can be derived from the server OPRF value using HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)); and
a computing server comprising one or more processors and memory storing code comprising instructions (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0125, the system 600 includes a processor 610, a memory 620, a storage device 630, and an input/output device 640. Each of the components 610, 620, 630, and 640 can be interconnected, for example, using a system bus 650. The processor 610 is capable of processing instructions for execution within the system 600. In some implementations, the processor 610 is a single-threaded processor. In another implementation, the processor 610 is a multi-threaded processor),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0125):
Fox-Epstein does not explicitly disclose receive encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints extracted from the plurality of unencrypted documents;
receive a query regarding information in the encrypted documents;
generate one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query;
perform, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints, one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query; and
return a query result
However, Rogers teaches receive encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints extracted from the plurality of unencrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 3, Lines 21-25, receiving a plurality of artifact fingerprints generated from each of the plurality of artifacts by generating shingles from text within each of the plurality of artifacts and cryptographically hashes the shingles to generate a plurality of artifact fingerprints);
receive a query regarding information in the encrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 28-30, the querying entity’s system 200 receives, via input 215, a plaintext query, which is provided to processor 205 (step 605));
generate one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 30-36, processor 205 then windows the plaintext query into shingles of length n with a sequential overlap of ko n-1 (step 610). An example of this is illustrated in FIG. 7 where a collection of data 705 of the query is windowed into a set of shingles 710. The shingles are then formed into fingerprints using a cryptographic hashing algorithm (step 615));
perform, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50, exemplary embodiments of the present invention treat the fingerprints as uniformly weighted vector spaces and the similarity between fingerprints is calculated as the cosine distance between two fingerprints), one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50, the fingerprints as uniformly weighted vector spaces and the similarity between fingerprints is calculated as the cosine distance between two fingerprints. Thus, the cosine distance is used in the present invention as a similarity score indicating the likelihood of a match between fingerprints… the uniform weighting provides a relatively simple way to compute the distance between two fingerprints. If S is defined as the set of query fingerprints, T as the set of fingerprints for a particular artifact, and ko, and k as the overlap parameters between the query and artifact finger prints) and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query (Rogers, Abstract, the query finger print is compared to the fingerprints of the documents to be queried to determine whether there are any matches); and
return a query result(Rogers, Col. 2, Lines 50-54, the querying party is provided with an indication of an entity that provided an artifact containing a matched fingerprint to the querying entity without revealing plaintext of the artifact containing the matched fingerprint), from the plurality of encrypted documents, corresponding to an encrypted entity fingerprint of the one or more encrypted entity fingerprints identified as relevant to the query (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 33-47, the unique artifact identifier allows the artifact to be quickly identified when there is a match between a finger printed shingle stored in the database and a fingerprinted query shingle… Accordingly, the third party only has access to the protected artifact fingerprints and cannot access the under lying data of the artifacts without permission from the artifact maintainer and/or the entity that provided the artifact to the artifact maintainer).
Fox-Epstein and Rogers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of transmitting the encrypted documents or to the client device and decrypted locally using the private key, using homomorphic encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein to incorporate the teachings of Rogers to include receive encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints extracted from the plurality of unencrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 3, Lines 21-25); receive a query regarding information in the encrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 28-30); generate one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 30-36); perform, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50), one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50) and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query (Rogers, Abstract); and return a query result(Rogers, Col. 2, Lines 50-54), from the plurality of encrypted documents, corresponding to an encrypted entity fingerprint of the one or more encrypted entity fingerprints identified as relevant to the query (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 33-47). Doing so would aid the third party to only access to the protected artifact fingerprints and not access the under lying data of the artifacts without permission from the artifact maintainer and/or the entity that provided the artifact to the artifact maintainer (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to receiving the query result, the client device is configured to use the homomorphic encryption private key to decrypt the relevant encrypted document to retrieve the unencrypted documents that are relevant to the query (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0046, the queries are encrypted using homomorphic encryption, and thus the results are also encrypted with homomorphic encryption. In such implementations, after executing the subset of queries 192, the server 160 retrieves server encrypted query results 194 that is further transmitted to the client 150. In such implementations, the client 150 after receiving the server encrypted query results 194, decrypts (or removes) the server encryption using the corresponding client-derived OPRF values 166 to generate the plaintext values of the server encrypted retrieved query results 194) and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0034, the AES key can be derived from the server OPRF value using HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the client device stores a software application that is in communication with the computing server (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0022, a user device 104 typically includes an operating system that is primarily responsible for managing the device hardware and software resources such as applications), the software application published by a party that controls the computing server (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0024, the content platform 106 can let one or more users subscribe to and/or register with the content platform 106. In response, the content platform 106 can retrieve digital content from the content providers 110 and provide the retrieved content to the user devices 104 of users), and the software application is configured to manage the homomorphic encryption private key and decryption of the plurality of encrypted documents (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0047, the client 150 can generate queries using either homomorphic encryption such as ring learning with errors (RWLE) or by using garbled circuits. In some implementations, the query results are encrypted with AES encryption with an AES key derived from the serverOPRF of the result’s corresponding database key).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the query received by the computing server is encrypted (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0066, after generating the client-encrypted queries for each of the M*N server encrypted identifiers and the padding queries, the client 202 transmits the full set of queries to the server 204 over the network 102).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the query received by the computing server comprises one or more encrypted query fingerprints (Rogers, Col. 3, Lines 25-30, the processor also receives from a querying entity at least one query fingerprint and determines whether the received at least one query fingerprint matches any of the artifact fingerprints stored in the database). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein to incorporate the teachings of Rogers to include wherein the query received by the computing server comprises one or more encrypted query fingerprints (Rogers, Col. 3, Lines 25-30). Doing so would aid the third party to only access to the protected artifact fingerprints and not access the under lying data of the artifacts without permission from the artifact maintainer and/or the entity that provided the artifact to the artifact maintainer (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more logical operations comprises calculating a similarity metric between an encrypted query fingerprint and an encrypted entity fingerprint (Rogers, Col. 8, Lines 36-41, a similarity score between the set of query fingerprints and the artifact finger prints co, is calculated using the cosine distance calculation (step 810), which produces a set of similarity values c for each comparison between the set of query fingerprints and each fingerprint stored in the database). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein to incorporate the teachings of Rogers to include wherein the one or more logical operations comprises calculating a similarity metric between an encrypted query fingerprint and an encrypted entity fingerprint (Rogers, Col. 8, Lines 36-41). Doing so would aid the third party to only access to the protected artifact fingerprints and not access the under lying data of the artifacts without permission from the artifact maintainer and/or the entity that provided the artifact to the artifact maintainer (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the query result comprises one or more encrypted entity fingerprints that are determined to be relevant to the query (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0123, after receiving the multiple client-encrypted queries, selects data based on the query that is the best match in the server database. For example, the server can select content corresponding to an entity identifier that has been assigned the highest priority and/or order. For example, a particular user from among the M users is assigned N entity identifiers and a corresponding binary vector in the indicator matrix).
Regarding claim 11, Fox-Epstein discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0125):
wherein the plurality of encrypted documents are stored in a data store and correspond to the plurality of unencrypted documents (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0034, the server 160 encrypts the server database 192 to generate a server encrypted database such that each database entry of the server encrypted database is server-encrypted and is capable of being decrypted by a corresponding client derived OPRF value); the client device storing a homomorphic encryption private key capable of decrypting the encrypted documents (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0061, the client 202 generates client-derived decryption keys using each server encrypted identifier (226)) and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0072, the server 204 can maintain the server-encrypted decryption keys by creating a database (referred to as a server OPRF database) that stores the server-encrypted decryption keys. In such implementations, the server encrypted database stores the server-encrypted keys and for each server-encrypted key, a corresponding server-encrypted decryption key) and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0046, the client 150 after receiving the server encrypted query results 194, decrypts (or removes) the server encryption using the corresponding client-derived OPRF values 166 to generate the plaintext values of the server encrypted retrieved query results 194) and ()and (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0034, the server 160 generates the server encrypted database using a deterministic homomorphic encryption technique… the AES key can be derived from the server OPRF value using HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)),
Fox-Epstein does not explicitly disclose receiving encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints extracted from a plurality of unencrypted documents,
receiving a query regarding information in the encrypted documents; generating one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query; performing, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints, one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query; and returning a query result that allows a client device to retrieve an encrypted document , from the plurality of encrypted documents, corresponding to an encrypted entity fingerprint of the one or more encrypted entity fingerprints identified as relevant to the query,
However, Rogers teaches receiving encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints extracted from a plurality of unencrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 3, Lines 21-25, receiving a plurality of artifact fingerprints generated from each of the plurality of artifacts by generating shingles from text within each of the plurality of artifacts and cryptographically hashes the shingles to generate a plurality of artifact fingerprints),
receiving a query regarding information in the encrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 28-30, the querying entity’s system 200 receives, via input 215, a plaintext query, which is provided to processor 205 (step 605)); generating one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 30-36, processor 205 then windows the plaintext query into shingles of length n with a sequential overlap of ko n-1 (step 610). An example of this is illustrated in FIG. 7 where a collection of data 705 of the query is windowed into a set of shingles 710. The shingles are then formed into fingerprints using a cryptographic hashing algorithm (step 615)); performing, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50, exemplary embodiments of the present invention treat the fingerprints as uniformly weighted vector spaces and the similarity between fingerprints is calculated as the cosine distance between two fingerprints), one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50, the fingerprints as uniformly weighted vector spaces and the similarity between fingerprints is calculated as the cosine distance between two fingerprints. Thus, the cosine distance is used in the present invention as a similarity score indicating the likelihood of a match between fingerprints… the uniform weighting provides a relatively simple way to compute the distance between two fingerprints. If S is defined as the set of query fingerprints, T as the set of fingerprints for a particular artifact, and ko, and k as the overlap parameters between the query and artifact finger prints) and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query (Rogers, Abstract, the query finger print is compared to the fingerprints of the documents to be queried to determine whether there are any matches); and returning a query result that allows a client device to retrieve an encrypted document (Rogers, Col. 2, Lines 50-54, the querying party is provided with an indication of an entity that provided an artifact containing a matched fingerprint to the querying entity without revealing plaintext of the artifact containing the matched fingerprint), from the plurality of encrypted documents, corresponding to an encrypted entity fingerprint of the one or more encrypted entity fingerprints identified as relevant to the query (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 33-47, the unique artifact identifier allows the artifact to be quickly identified when there is a match between a finger printed shingle stored in the database and a fingerprinted query shingle… Accordingly, the third party only has access to the protected artifact fingerprints and cannot access the under lying data of the artifacts without permission from the artifact maintainer and/or the entity that provided the artifact to the artifact maintainer),
Fox-Epstein and Rogers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of transmitting the encrypted documents or to the client device and decrypted locally using the private key, using homomorphic encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein to incorporate the teachings of Rogers to include receiving encrypted entity fingerprints encrypted from entity fingerprints extracted from a plurality of unencrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 3, Lines 21-25), receiving a query regarding information in the encrypted documents (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 28-30); generating one or more encrypted query fingerprints corresponding to the query (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 30-36); performing, without decrypting the encrypted entity fingerprints or the one or more encrypted query fingerprints (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50), one or more logical operations on the encrypted entity fingerprints and the one or more encrypted query fingerprints to compute a similarity metric (Rogers, Col. 7, Lines 45-50) and identify one or more encrypted entity fingerprints relevant to the query (Rogers, Abstract); and returning a query result that allows a client device to retrieve an encrypted document (Rogers, Col. 2, Lines 50-54), from the plurality of encrypted documents, corresponding to an encrypted entity fingerprint of the one or more encrypted entity fingerprints identified as relevant to the query (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 33-47). Doing so would aid the third party to only access to the protected artifact fingerprints and not access the under lying data of the artifacts without permission from the artifact maintainer and/or the entity that provided the artifact to the artifact maintainer (Rogers, Col. 6, Lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 11.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox-Epstein et al. (US 2023/0318809 A1), hereinafter Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers et al. (US 9,552.494 B1), hereinafter Rogers.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 1, encrypting the entity fingerprint to generate the encrypted entity fingerprint (Fox-Epstein, Fig. 2, Para. 0114, the client 202 uses techniques to decrypt (or remove) the encryption that was performed by the client 202 in step 214 to generate “server-encrypted identifiers” from each of the server-client-encrypted identifiers).
The combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers does not explicitly teach wherein the client device stores a software application that is in communication with the computing server,
wherein the software application is configured to generate an encrypted entity fingerprint, and wherein generating the encrypted entity fingerprint comprises: extracting an entity from plaintext of an unencrypted document; converting the entity into an entity embedding that represents the entity in a latent space; comparing the entity embedding to a reference embedding; generating an entity fingerprint based on comparing values in the entity embedding to corresponding values to the reference embedding; and
However, De Sousa Webber teaches wherein the client device stores a software application that is in communication with the computing server (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0250, a computing device 1200 may execute, operate or otherwise provide an application, which can be any type and/or form of software, program, or executable instructions, including, without limitation, any type and/or form of web browser, web-based client, client-server application, an ActiveX control, or a JAVA applet, or any other type and/or form of executable instructions capable of executing on the computing device 1200),
wherein the software application is configured to generate an encrypted entity fingerprint (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0071, the sparsifying module 116 therefore generates an SDR 118, which may be said to provide a binary fingerprint of the semantic meaning or the semantic value of a data item in the set of data documents 104) and (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0077, the terms “SDR” and “fingerprint” and “semantic fingerprint” are used interchangeably herein and may be used to refer both to SDRs that have been generated by the fingerprinting module 302 and to SDRs that are generated by the calling the representation generator 114 directly), and wherein generating the encrypted entity fingerprint comprises: extracting an entity from plaintext of an unencrypted document (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0055, selected nouns may be stemmed to aggregate all morphologic variants behind one main data item instance (e.g., plurals and case variations). As a further example, a term-frequency-inverse document frequency (“tf-idf indexed”) statistic is calculated for selected nouns, reflecting how important a data item is to a data document given the specific set of data documents 104; a coefficient may be computed based on the data item count in the document and a data item count in the set of data documents 104. In some embodiments, the system 100 identifies a predetermined number of the highest tf-idf indexed and stemmed nouns per document, generating an aggregate complete list of selected nouns to define document vectors) and (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0065); converting the entity into an entity embedding that represents the entity in a latent space (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0069, the spatial distribution of coordinate pairs in the pattern reflects the semantic regions in the context of which the data item occurred. The representation generator 114 may generate a two-way mapping between a data item and its distributed representation); comparing the entity embedding to a reference embedding (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0184, by a similarity engine executing on the second computing device, a level of semantic similarity between the compound SDR generated for the document and an SDR retrieved from the SDR database (1170)); generating an entity fingerprint based on comparing values in the entity embedding to corresponding values to the reference embedding (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0077, the sparsifying module 116 therefore generates an SDR 118, which may be said to provide a binary fingerprint of the semantic meaning or the semantic value of a data item in the set of data documents 104);
Fox-Epstein, Rogers and De Sousa Webber are both considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of transmitting the encrypted documents or to the client device and decrypted locally using the private key, using homomorphic encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein and Rogers to incorporate the teachings of De Sousa Webber to include wherein the client device stores a software application that is in communication with the computing server (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0250), wherein the software application is configured to generate an encrypted entity fingerprint (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0071) and (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0077), and wherein generating the encrypted entity fingerprint comprises: extracting an entity from plaintext of an unencrypted document (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0055) and (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0065); converting the entity into an entity embedding that represents the entity in a latent space (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0069); comparing the entity embedding to a reference embedding (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0184); generating an entity fingerprint based on comparing values in the entity embedding to corresponding values to the reference embedding (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0077). Doing so would aid to reduce, by the sparsifying module, for each distributed representation, a total number of set bits within the distributed representation based on the maximum level of sparsity to generate a sparse distributed representation (SDR) having a normative fillgrade (De Sousa Webber, Para. 0093).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox-Epstein et al. (US 2023/0318809 A1), hereinafter Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers et al. (US 9,552.494 B1), hereinafter Rogers in view of De Sousa Webber (US 2018/0113676 A1), hereinafter De Sousa Webber and further in view of Dolve et al. (US 2024/0176883 A1), hereinafter Dolve.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fox-Epstein and Rogers in view of De Sousa Webber does not explicitly teach the system of claim 4, wherein the entity fingerprint is using a homomorphic encryption public key corresponding to the homomorphic encryption private key.
However, Dolev teaches wherein the entity fingerprint is using a homomorphic encryption public key corresponding to the homomorphic encryption private key (Dolev, Para. 0022, The input control bits may be encrypted using Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE)) and (Dolev, Para. 0007, enables computation of arbitrary functions on encrypted data without knowing the secret key).
Fox-Epstein, Rogers, De Sousa Webber and Dolev are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of transmitting the encrypted documents or to the client device and decrypted locally using the private key, using homomorphic encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein, Rogers and De Sousa Webber to incorporate the teachings of Dolev to include wherein the entity fingerprint is using a homomorphic encryption public key corresponding to the homomorphic encryption private key (Dolev, Para. 0022) and (Dolev, Para. 0007). Doing so would aid to verify the execution of requested computation tasks, delegated by a computerized delegator device, to one or more computerized devices executing the tasks (Dolev, Para. 0014).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 5.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox-Epstein et al. (US 2023/0318809 A1), hereinafter Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers et al. (US 9,552.494 B1), hereinafter Rogers and further in view of Dolve et al. (US 2024/0176883 A1), hereinafter Dolve.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 8, wherein calculating the similarity metric between the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint comprises (Fox-Epstein, Para. 0123, a particular user from among the M users is assigned N entity identifiers and a corresponding binary vector in the indicator matrix. The server 204 will select a single client-encrypted query that is based on an entity identifier whose corresponding value in the binary vector is 1 and is simultaneously the first occurrence of 1 in the binary vector. In some situations, that will be the most well-defined query that is matched, as previously discussed):
the combination of Fox-Epstein in view of Rogers does not explicitly teach passing, bitwise, values in the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint into one or more logical circuits; and accumulating bits outputs of the one or more logical circuits: passing, bitwise, values in the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint into one or more logical circuits (Dolev, Para. 0125); and accumulating bits outputs of the one or more logical circuits.
However, Dolev teaches passing, bitwise (Dolev, Para. 0086, return(x+y)−(x·y) Algorithm 3 Implementation of the Bitwise), values in the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint into one or more logical circuits (Dolev, Para. 0125, this bit is used to indicate in the final result received from the server that this specific exponentiation operation was indeed applied in the calculation process, as the fingerprint was changed accordingly. This solution makes the server independent from the delegator, and allows the server to continue calculating without interruptions, with a computational cost of using the LUT when switching from multiplication to additions. For example, the polynomial (that represents an arithmetic circuit), say, F (x, y)=2·(x·y+32) for x=4, y=8 is calculated); and accumulating bits outputs of the one or more logical circuits (Dolev, Para. 0088, out[0]=negatedn· . . . ·negated2·negated1·negated0·output0). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox-Epstein and Rogers to incorporate the teachings of Dolev to include passing, bitwise (Dolev, Para. 0086), values in the encrypted query fingerprint and the encrypted entity fingerprint into one or more logical circuits (Dolev, Para. 0125); and accumulating bits outputs of the one or more logical circuits (Dolev, Para. 0088). Doing so would aid to verify the execution of requested computation tasks, delegated by a computerized delegator device, to one or more computerized devices executing the tasks (Dolev, Para. 0014).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth
in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTOL-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GITA FARAMARZI whose telephone number is (571)272-0248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00 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, Jorge L. 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.
/GITA FARAMARZI/Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights