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 .
Claims 1-23 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 recites "a computer-readable storage medium, storing program code..." The specification does not explicitly define as to what type of computer readable storage medium is claimed. Broadly interpreted, a “computer storage medium” can be any means that include propagate and transmission signals, which are non-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to either “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101; (emphasis added).
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
“a determination unit, configured to, when first computing data is obtained after performing corresponding computation on to-be-processed data based on a first sub-algorithm in a privacy algorithm, and when it is determined that the first computing data needs to be recomputed based on a second sub-algorithm in the privacy algorithm, wherein the second sub- algorithm is stored in another privacy computing device, determine a proxy application programming interface (API) corresponding to the first sub-algorithm and a proxy API corresponding to the second sub-algorithm according to a pre-stored correspondence between sub-algorithms and proxy APIs; and“
Each of these limitations would be practical to perform in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Each of these limitations work together to work on a to-be-processed data, go through some re-computation processes on a secondary sub-algorithm and determines an intermediary proxy API. This is the type of analysis that goes into data analysis and computation and can reasonably be done in the human mind. As result, the limitations listed recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites “then sends the first computing data corresponding computation based on the first sub-algorithm to the proxy API”. The claimed privacy computing device is a generic computer component that is being claimed as just a tool to perform the claimed mental steps. Performing an abstract idea on a computer tool does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites “a transmission unit, configured to send the first computing data to the proxy API corresponding to the second sub-algorithm through the proxy API corresponding to the first sub-algorithm, so that the other privacy computing device performs corresponding computation on first computing data based on the second sub-algorithm.” The privacy computing device sending the claimed first computing data is a data gathering step which uses the data from the first sub-algorithm to perform the mental process. The claimed data gathering step is insignificant extra solution activity and does not transform the claimed abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). The additional elements have been considered alone, and in combination with the claimed invention as a whole, but does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As result, the invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the privacy computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The reception of the claimed first computing data is an insignificant extra solution activity, which is additional well understood routine, and conventional. MPEP §2106.05(g) details similar data gather steps that have been found by the courts to be well understood routine, and conventional. Additionally Applicant’s specification (see ¶¶0067-0070) provides only broad disclosure of the transmission and reception of first computing data and second computing data and makes it clear that it considers standard APIs as a means of flow and call of data in privacy computing, as well known aspects of the disclosure. As result, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for their dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 16 is directed towards a method rather than the system of claim 1, however the same rationale applies to claim 11 as provided in the rejection to claim 1. As result, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 is directed towards a method rather than the system of claim 1, however the same rationale applies to claim 11 as provided in the rejection to claim 1. As result, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16.
Claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…a determination unit, configured to, when first computing data is obtained…” “a transmission unit, configured to send the first computing data…” and “a scene algorithm module, configured to send…and the security algorithm module, configured to receive…” in claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-14 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 limitation “…a determination unit, configured to, when first computing data is obtained…” “a transmission unit, configured to send the first computing data…” and “a scene algorithm module, configured to send…and the security algorithm module, configured to receive…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is absent adequate structure to perform the claimed function, especially the claimed function of "performing corresponding computations on the to-be-processed data." There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform "computing, determining, and sending/receiving computing data". As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “unit and module” are nebulous and should positively recite what should be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which collects structure or structures perform(s) the claimed unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-23 would be in condition for allow if the 101 and 112(b) rejections were obviated.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, as recited, Park et al 20210226812 A1, Phegade et al 20160044005 A1, Harguindeguy et al EP 3678348 A1, Huakong was submitted in 01/14/2025 IDS and Cloud Science was submitted in 01/14/2025 IDS are also generally directed to a privacy computing device, comprising [Park ¶¶0121-0122 Fig. 6 shows components of BMS 600 and/or Cloud building management platform 620 can be integrated within a single device (e.g., a supervisory controller, a BMS controller, etc.) or distributed across multiple separate systems or devices. Phegade ¶¶0010 and 0012 Fig. 1 shows communication system 100 for mutually assured data sharing between distrusting parties in a network, include: a first client device 102, a second client device 112 and a secure element 106 of a trust broker service 108. Harguindeguy ¶¶009-0011 invention disclosures systems, devices, and methods for enabling traffic monitoring between clients and servers and server security through proxy-based traffic monitoring and security enforcement. Huakong ¶¶0003 and 0050-0107, and figures 1-3) a computing node and a privacy computing system: as shown in figures 1-2, the computing node comprises a plurality of APIs 15; a computing module 13 is used for calling a specified API 15 conforming to a specified task from the plurality of APIs 15 on the basis of the ciphertext data;]: determination unit, configured to, when first computing data is obtained after performing corresponding computation on to-be-processed data based on a first sub-algorithm in a privacy algorithm, and when it is determined that the first computing data needs to be recomputed based on a second sub-algorithm in the privacy algorithm, wherein the second sub-algorithm is stored in another privacy computing device, [Park ¶0121 some or all of the components of BMS 600 and/or Cloud building management platform 620 can be components of a subsystem level controller (e.g., a HVAC controller), a subplant controller, a device controller (e.g., AHU controller 330, a chiller controller, etc.), a field controller, a computer workstation, a client device, or any other system or device that receives and processes data from building systems and equipment. Phegade ¶¶0012-0013 0017-0018 0031 and 0034 first client device 102 may be associated with a first entity and second client device 112 may be associated with a second entity, where respective data using one or more mutually agreed upon procedure and/or algorithms that determine the portions of their respective data for data to be shared via using a secure element 106 provided by trust broker service 108 based on secure code store 206 shown in Fig. 2 of the simplified block diagram of the secure element 106. Fig. 3 shows for example how the first client device 102 includes processor(s) 300, a memory element 302, a secure data store 304, and a secure communication module 306; where memory element 302 stores software instructions and data associated with the first client device 102. Examiner interprets that software instructions and data associated with the first client device 102 are analogous to a first sub-algorithm in a privacy algorithm; whereas the mutually agreed upon respective procedure and/or algorithms are analogous to a second sub-algorithm in the privacy algorithm. Cloud Science was submitted in 01/14/2025 IDS ¶0044-0094, and figures 1-4 a privacy computing node and method: the privacy computing node may be configured to execute the same privacy computing task in collaboration with other privacy computing nodes. Each privacy computing node may comprise a business proxy service 11 and a communication proxy service 12. With reference to figure 2, the business proxy service of a privacy computing node A sends a communication request to the communication proxy service of the privacy computing node A. The communication request comprises sub-tasks required to be executed by a privacy computing node B when the same privacy computing task is cooperatively executed. The business proxy service of the privacy computing node B receives and executes the sub-tasks sent by the communication proxy service thereof.]; determine a application programming interface (API) corresponding to the first sub-algorithm and a API corresponding to the second sub-algorithm according to a pre-stored correspondence between sub-algorithms and APIs [Phegade ¶¶0025 0030- The first client device 102, the secure element 106, and the second client device 112 are network elements that include suitable interfaces for receiving, transmitting, and/or otherwise communicating data or information in a network environment. This may be inclusive of appropriate algorithms and communication protocols that allow for the effective exchange of data or information. Examiner interprets the combination of the algorithms and communication protocols as analogous to a proxy application programming (API). Figs. 2 Secure code store 206 is configured to store code configured to execute the mutually agreed upon algorithms or procedures to process the sensitive data received from each of the distrusting parties. Huakong ¶¶0003 and 0050-0107, and figures 1-3) a computing node and a privacy computing system: as shown in figures 1-2, the computing node comprises a plurality of APIs 15; a computing module 13 is used for calling a specified API 15 conforming to a specified task from the plurality of APIs 15 on the basis of the ciphertext data; the API 15 calls a specified algorithm engine from loaded algorithm engines to calculate the specified task]; and a transmission unit, configured to send the first computing data to the API corresponding to the second sub-algorithm through the API corresponding to the first sub-algorithm, so that the other privacy computing device performs corresponding computation on first computing data based on the second sub-algorithm [Phegade ¶¶0010-0011 First network 104 is in further communication with a secure element 106 of a trust broker service 108 through which it connects to a second network 110 to interconnect the second client device 112 and a third computing device 114; using a configuration capable of transmission control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP) user datagram protocol/IP (UDP/IP) or any other suitable protocol for communications for the transmission or reception of packets in a network. Examiner interprets the combination of the algorithms and communication protocols as analogous to a proxy application programming (API) to interconnect. Huakong was submitted in 01/14/2025 IDS ¶¶0003 and 0050-0107, and figures 1-3) an interface conversion module 16 is used for converting a data format of the ciphertext data into a data format meeting a second computing interface specification requirement supported by a second language after being called by the API 15. The privacy computing system comprises a computing node 21 and a control node 22, wherein the control node 22 may select the computing node 21 having this type of algorithm to participate in the computation of the task]
However, none of Reference_Inv1, Reference_Inv2, and Reference_Inv3 teach or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims, claims X and XX. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggest determine a proxy application programming interface (API) corresponding to the first sub-algorithm and a proxy API corresponding to the second sub-algorithm according to a pre-stored correspondence between sub-algorithms and proxy APIs, wherein the second sub-algorithm is stored in another privacy computing device, and a transmission unit, configured to send the first computing data to the proxy API corresponding to the second sub-algorithm through the proxy API corresponding to the first sub-algorithm, so that the other privacy computing device performs corresponding computation on first computing data based on the second sub-algorithm, in view of other limitations of claims 1, 16, and 21-22.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance." 8. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance." In event of any post-allowance papers (e.g. IDS, 312 amendment, petition, etc.), Applicant is exhorted to mail papers to the Production Control branch in Publications or faxed to post-allowance papers correspondence branch at (703) 308-5864 to expedite issuing process or call PUB's Customer Service if any questions at (703) 305-8497.
The closest prior art made of record are:
Park et al 20210226812 A1 teaches building system for identity management of a building, the building system including one or more storage devices configured to store instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive a request to determine whether an entity has a privilege and determine whether the entity has the privilege by querying, based on the request, a graph database to identity information of the graph database that indicates whether the entity has the privilege, wherein the graph database stores nodes representing at least one of users, equipment, events, or spaces of the building, wherein the graph database stores edges between the nodes representing relationships between the users, equipment, events, or spaces. The instructions cause the one or more processors to generate a response including a determination whether the entity has the privilege..
Phegade et al 20160044005 A1 teaches an apparatus for sharing information between entities including a processor and a trusted execution module executing on the processor. The trusted execution module is configured to receive first confidential information from a first client device associated with a first entity, seal the first confidential information within a trusted execution environment, receive second confidential information from a second client device associated with a second entity, seal the second confidential information within the trusted execution environment, and execute code within the trusted execution environment. The code is configured to compute a confidential result based upon the first confidential information and the second confidential information.
Harguindeguy et al EP 3678348 A1 teaches traffic monitoring through one or more access control servers configured for (i) routing server resource request messages to resource server(s), (ii) extracting information identifying a target server resource from data packets corresponding to one or more received server resource request messages, and (iii) selectively transmitting the received server resource request message to a resource server. The security server(s) is configured to receive a server resource request message data extracted from a server resource request message and initiate a first security response, wherein the initiated first security response is dependent on analysis of the server resource request message data. Responsive to identifying an indicator of compromise or that an originating terminal corresponding to the server resource request is identified within a blacklist, the first security response comprises non-transmission of at least one server resource request message by the access control server to a resource server..
Rogers et al 20230103518 A1 teaches apparatuses, systems, and techniques to generate a trusted execution environment including multiple accelerators. In at least one embodiment, a parallel processing unit (PPU), such as a graphics processing unit (GPU), operates in a secure execution mode including a protect memory region. Furthermore, in an embodiment, a cryptographic key is utilized to protect data during transmission between the accelerators.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zage et al 20220138286 A1 teaches graphics security with synergistic encryption, content-based and resource management technology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-0682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:45a-6:45p.
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, CATHERINE THIAW can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/Sakinah White-Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights