CTNF 18/990,641 CTNF 91463 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This is a reply to the application filed on 12/20/2024 with preliminary amendment filed on 12/20/2024, in which, claim(s) 1-14 are pending. Claim(s) 1 is independent. Claim(s) 1-14 have been amended. No claims are canceled or newly added. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in French Republic on 12/21/2023 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2314913 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement. Drawings The drawings filed on 12/20/2024 are accepted by The Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-14 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. Claim 1 recites “ S2) said at least one emitting client sends the input data item under the first encryption (Enc 1) to one of the computers; S3) during a data processing operation, the two computers apply the combination of elementary operations to said encrypted data item received in step S2 ”. Step S3 says “ the two computers apply the combination of elementary operations ”, however in step S2, only one of the computers received the data, so how can two computers apply the operation to the data if only one computer received the data? Claim 1 recites “ S31) the first computer encrypts the processed data item under second encryption ” and “ S32) the first computer sends the second computer s ”. The terms “first computer”, “processed data item” and “second computer s ” are lack of antecedent basis. Also, the term “second computer s ” should be “second computer”. Claim 1 recites “ which may be in particular be masking encryption ”. It is not clear what is the term “which” refers to. Claim 1 recites “ the first and the second encryption verify the property, for any processed data item x ”. It is not clear how this limitation related to previous limitations of claim 1 and how “encryption” verifies something? What is performing the verification? Besides, the term “property” is lack of antecedent basis. Claim 11 recites “ supplied as an input data item of operation S0730 of the following computing loop where applicable ”. It is not clear what is “the following computing loop”? Also, the term “where applicable” is a relative phrase which renders the claims indefinite. Claim 12 recites “ wherein a verifiable computing protocol is defined, which makes it possible to verify the result by carrying out an elementary verification for each of said elementary operations ”. It is not clear what defines the computing protocol and what is performing the verification? Also, the terms “verifiable” and “makes it possible to” is a relative phrase which renders the claims indefinite because it implies context, scale, and probability rather than a definitive, absolute outcome. Claim 13 recites “ supplies the data item obtained as an input for a step S31 of the following index loop where applicable ”. It is not clear what is “the following index loop”? Also, the term “where applicable” is a relative phrase which renders the claims indefinite. Claim 14 recites “ the second encryption being a homomorphic encryption ensuring security against CCA attacks, for example Paillier encryption ”. The term “CCA” is not defined (or spelled out) and the term “for example ” is a relative phrase which renders the claims indefinite. Claim 14 recites “ supplies the data item obtained as an input for a step S31 of the following index loop where applicable ”. It is not clear what is “the following index loop”? Also, the term “where applicable” is a relative phrase which renders the claims indefinite. Claims 2-10 are also rejected for their dependency upon claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (US 2019/0327077 A1) in view of Guzhevskiy et al. (US 2022/0188822 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Mandal discloses A method for processing data in a system comprising two computers to obtain a result using at least one input data item to be supplied by at least one emitting client, the result being obtained by applying a combination of elementary operations to at least one input data item ([0004], “a method may include encrypting data at trusted execution environment (TEE) to generate a first ciphertext. The method may also include conveying the first ciphertext to a graphics processing unit (GPU). Further, the method may include performing, at the GPU, at least one somewhat homomorphic encryption (SHE) evaluation operation on the first ciphertext to generate a second ciphertext”); wherein one of the computers is a server, and the other is a trusted execution environment, TEE ([0022], “a central processing unit (CPU) 102, a TEE 104”); a first encryption [Encl,Decl] and a second encryption [Enc2,Dec2] are defined, one being indecipherable by the server, and the other being indecipherable by the TEE ([0002], “provide security guarantees such as confidentiality of user data, even while performing operations (e.g., computations) on the user data”); the method includes the following steps : S1) at least one emitting client supplies a first input data item and applies the first encryption to it ([0023], “receive an input x (e.g., an input received at processing unit 102) and generate a ciphertext c via an Encrypt function 108”); S2) said at least one emitting client sends the input data item under the first encryption (Enc 1) to one of the computers ([0023], “the ciphertext may be conveyed to processing unit 106”); S3) during a data processing operation, the two computers apply the combination of elementary operations to said encrypted data item received in step S2 so as to obtain a ciphertext of the result, and send this result to at least one receiving client ([0024], “processing unit 106 may be configured to receive ciphertext c, perform a SHE operation (e.g., a SHE evaluation) (e.g., via an Eval function 110) of function ƒ on ciphertext c to generate ciphertext c′”), step S3 including the following elementary steps : S31) the first computer encrypts the processed data item under second encryption ([0024], “processing unit 106 may be configured to receive ciphertext c, perform a SHE operation (e.g., a SHE evaluation) (e.g., via an Eval function 110) of function ƒ on ciphertext c to generate ciphertext c′”); S32) the first computer sends the second computers the processed data item obtained, encrypted under first and second encryption ([0024], “Moreover, processing unit 106 may be configured convey the other ciphertext (e.g., ciphertext c′) to TEE 104”); and S33) the second computer removes the first encryption from the processed data item received ([0024], “upon receipt thereof, TEE 104 may decrypt ciphertext c′ (e.g., via a Decrypt function 112) to generate a function ƒ(x)”); S4) said at least one receiving client deciphers the ciphertext of the result and obtains the result ([0024], “upon receipt thereof, TEE 104 may decrypt ciphertext c′ (e.g., via a Decrypt function 112) to generate a function ƒ(x). TEE 104 may further include a Keygen function 114 for generating a secret key sk, which may be used for decryption (e.g., decryption of ciphertext c′)”); during the data processing performed in step S3, the server only processes processed data under at least the encryption indecipherable by the server, and the TEE only processes processed data under at least the encryption indecipherable by the TEE ([0014], “outsourcing one or more processing operations via encryption (e.g., homomorphic encryption). More specifically, for example, one or more processing operations (e.g., TEE computations) may be outsourced from a TEE (e.g., of a central processing unit (CPU)) to another processing unit (e.g., graphics processing unit (GPU)) with encryption (e.g., homomorphic encryption)”); and the first and the second encryption verify the property, for any processed data item x: Dec2(Dec1(Enc2(Enc1(x)))) = Dec2(Enc2(x)) ([0015], “Fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) may allow for processing operations (e.g., computations) to be performed on a ciphertext of a message. Further, FHE may allow for decryption and recovery of the message. FHE is inherently inefficient and may be considered impractical. A “weaker” variant of FHE, referred to as “somewhat homomorphic encryption” (SHE), allows for homomorphic encryption, but for limited or smaller operations (e.g., computations). In most instances, SHE is much faster than FHE”). Mandal does not explicitly teach but Guzhevskiy teaches the TEE only processes processed data, which may be in particular be masking encryption ([0214], “A privacy and consent broker 520 can be configured to securely create multiple service instances in the TEE 211… a privacy and consent broker 520 can be configured to apply basic data privacy preservation operations such as encryption , anonymisation, masking ”), Mandal and Guzhevskiy are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guzhevskiy with the disclosure of Mandal. The motivation/suggestion would have been for a cyber security threat detection (Guzhevskiy, [0226]). Regarding Claim 2, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein said encryption indecipherable by the server is or comprises a homomorphic, in particular fully homomorphic, encryption (Mandal, [0014], “homomorphic encryption”). Regarding Claim 3, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein in step S3, the TEE applies to the processed data item or to the processed data only one or more support functions ; a support function being a function other than said elementary operations and which: - contributes to the execution of homomorphic computing operations by the server or to the verification thereof (Mandal, [0023-0024], “TEE 104 may be configured to receive an input x (e.g., an input received at processing unit 102) and generate a ciphertext c via an Encrypt function 108”); - serves to encrypt or decipher data to be processed received from the client, processed data (by the computers), or results sent to the client; and/or - serves to prepare (verification) data serving to verify data to be processed received from the client, processed data, and/or results sent to the client (Mandal, [0023-0024], “processing unit 106 may be configured to receive ciphertext c, perform a SHE operation (e.g., a SHE evaluation) (e.g., via an Eval function 110) of function ƒ on ciphertext c to generate ciphertext c′”). Regarding Claim 4, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches S0235) the second computer applies the first encryption to the deciphered data item during step S33, and sends the data item obtained to the first computer (Mandal, [0023-0024], “TEE 104 may be configured to encrypt an input”); and S0236) the first computer removes the second encryption from the processed data item received following step S0235 (Mandal, [0023-0024], “upon receipt thereof, TEE 104 may decrypt ciphertext c′ (e.g., via a Decrypt function 112) to generate a function ƒ(x)”). Regarding Claim 5, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein step S0235 is performed immediately following step S33, such that during step S0235, the second computer applies the first encryption to the processed data item obtained at the output of step S33 (Mandal, [0023-0024], “upon receipt thereof, TEE 104 may decrypt ciphertext c′ (e.g., via a Decrypt function 112) to generate a function ƒ(x)”). Regarding Claim 6, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein during step S3, the processed data item is encrypted under an encryption other than the first encryption or is encrypted with the first encryption but with another encryption key; and the encrypted result returned following step S3 is encrypted with a different encryption from the first encryption or is encrypted with the first encryption but with another encryption key (Mandal, [0023-0024], “upon receipt thereof, TEE 104 may decrypt ciphertext c′ (e.g., via a Decrypt function 112) to generate a function ƒ(x). TEE 104 may further include a Keygen function 114 for generating a secret key sk, which may be used for decryption (e.g., decryption of ciphertext c′)”). Regarding Claim 7, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein a receiving client receiving the encrypted result following step S3, is identical to or different from the or each of said at least one emitting client supplying the data item in step S1 (Mandal, see Fig. 5, TEE 502 & GPU 504). Regarding Claim 8, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches including a step S0411 preceding step S2 and during which the first client applies an additional encryption, particularly symmetric, to the data item; and after the data item has been sent to the first computer in step S2, the first computer removes the additional encryption (Mandal, [0014], “outsourcing one or more processing operations via encryption”, [0024], “upon receipt thereof, TEE 104 may decrypt ciphertext c′ (e.g., via a Decrypt function 112) to generate a function ƒ(x)”). Regarding Claim 9, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein - during an operation S0533, the TEE removes the first encryption, referred to as initial first encryption, which can in particular be a masking encryption, from the processed data item; and - during an operation S0535, the TEE applies to the processed data item a homomorphic encryption, as final first encryption (Mandal, [0015], “Fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) may allow for processing operations (e.g., computations) to be performed on a ciphertext of a message. Further, FHE may allow for decryption and recovery of the message”); - during an operation S0535a, following step S0535, the processed data item under final first encryption and under second encryption is sent to the server; when all of the elementary operations have been performed, the ciphertext of the result is sent to the client under final first encryption; and in step S4, the client removes the final first encryption (Mandal, [0014], “outsourcing one or more processing operations via encryption (e.g., homomorphic encryption). More specifically, for example, one or more processing operations (e.g., TEE computations) may be outsourced from a TEE (e.g., of a central processing unit (CPU)) to another processing unit (e.g., graphics processing unit (GPU)) with encryption (e.g., homomorphic encryption)”). Regarding Claim 10, the combined teaching of Mandal and Guzhevskiy teaches wherein the first encryption applied in step S1 is homomorphic encryption, referred to as first homomorphic encryption; during a step S0633, the TEE removes the first homomorphic encryption from the processed data item (Mandal, [0014-0015], “outsourcing one or more processing operations via encryption (e.g., homomorphic encryption)”, “FHE may allow for decryption and recovery of the message”); during a step S0635 performed after step S0633, the TEE applies to the data item a second homomorphic encryption other than the first homomorphic encryption; and in step S4, the client removes the second homomorphic encryption from the encrypted result (Mandal, [0014-0015], “outsourcing one or more processing operations via encryption (e.g., homomorphic encryption)”, “FHE may allow for decryption and recovery of the message”). Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1. Claims 12-14 are allowable in view of their dependencies on claim 11. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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. /CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 2 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 3 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 4 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 5 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 6 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 7 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 8 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 9 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 10 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 11 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 12 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 13 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/990,641 Page 14 Art Unit: 2497
Prosecution Insights