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 .
This initial written action is responding to the communication dated on 01/15/2025.
Claim 1 is canceled
Claims 2-21 are submitted for examination.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
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.
Priority
This application filed on January 15, 2025 claims priority of Parent application 18/414,872 filed on January 17, 2024, which claims priority of Parent application 17/459,076 filed on August 27, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The following Information Disclosure Statements in the instant application submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and thus, have been fully considered:
IDS filed on 05 June 2025.
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 plurality of computer nodes associated with a networked system that is configured to perform the transaction..”, in claim 9. “…wherein the first computer node is configured to generate first processed data based on processing the data using the first key..”, in claim 15. “…..wherein the second computer node is configured to generate second processed data based on processing the first processed data using the second key..”, in claim 16.
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.
Since these claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 9 and 15-16 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“first computer node” and “second computer node” are interpreted as Device 110, Device 140, Device 150, Device 180, Device 190 of Figure 1. Paragraph 92 of specification describes, “ Fig. 10 is a block diagram of a computer system 1000 suitable for implementing one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, including the service provider server 130, the user device 110, and devices 140, 150, 180, and 190 (computer nodes U1 to U2)”. Paragraph 94 describes further, “The components of the computer system 1000 also include a system memory component 1010 (e.g., RAM), a static storage component 1016 (e.g., ROM), and/or a disk drive 1018 (e.g., a solid-state drive, a hard drive). The computer system 1000 performs specific operations by the processor 1014 and other components by executing one or more sequences of instructions contained in the system memory component 1010. For example, the processor 1014 can perform the multi-party computation functionalities described herein according to the processes 800 and 900”. Thus “first computer node” and “second computer node” recites sufficient structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 9 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,543. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, See comparison table below.
Instant Application 19/022,8687
Patent Application 18/414,872, Patent # 12,231,543
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONFIGURING A NETWORKED SYSTEM TO PERFORM THRESHOLD MULTI-PARTY COMPUTATION
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONFIGURING A NETWORKED SYSTEM TO PERFORM THRESHOLD MULTI-PARTY COMPUTATION
2
A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to: receive, from a device, a request for performing a multi-party computation; access, based on the request, a plurality of computer nodes associated with a networked system, the networked system deployed according to a configuration determined based on computation characteristics associated with the networked system and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes, the configuration specifying (i) a minimum number of computer nodes, among the plurality of computer nodes, to perform the multi-party computation and (ii) a key distribution of a plurality of keys for performing the multi-party computation across the plurality of computer nodes; determine an order of the plurality of computer nodes for performing the multi-party computation based on the key distribution of the plurality of keys across the plurality of computer nodes; and instruct the plurality of computer nodes to perform respective portions of the multi-party computation using respective subsets of the plurality of keys according to the order.
1
A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to deploy a networked system for performing a computation, wherein the request specifies a plurality of computing devices associated with the networked system; determining computation characteristics associated with the computation and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computing devices; determining a configuration for the networked system based on the computation characteristics and the device characteristics, wherein the configuration specifies a minimum number of computing devices, among the plurality of computing devices, required to perform the computation; and deploying the networked system based on the configuration, wherein the deploying comprises (i) determining a plurality of keys required to perform the computation based on the configuration and (ii) distributing different subsets of the plurality of keys to different computing devices in the plurality of computing devices.
9
A method, comprising: receiving, by a computer system from a device, a request for performing a transaction; accessing, by the computer system and based on the request, a plurality of computer nodes associated with a networked system that is configured to perform the transaction, the networked system deployed according to a configuration determined based on computation characteristics associated with the networked system and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes, the configuration specifying a key distribution of a plurality of keys for performing the transaction across the plurality of computer nodes; determining, by the computer system, an order of the plurality of computer nodes for performing the transaction based on the key distribution of the plurality of keys across the plurality of computer nodes; and instructing, by the computer system, the plurality of computer nodes to perform respective portions of the transaction using respective subsets of the plurality of keys according to the order.
14
A method comprising: receiving a request to deploy a networked system for performing a computation, wherein the request specifies a plurality of computing devices associated with the networked system; determining, by a computer system, computation characteristics associated with the computation and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computing devices; determining, by the computer system, a configuration for the networked system based on the computation characteristics and the device characteristics, wherein the configuration specifies a minimum number of computing devices, among the plurality of computing devices, required to perform the computation; and deploying, by the computer system, the networked system based on the configuration, wherein the deploying comprises (i) determining a plurality of keys required to perform the computation based on the configuration and (ii) distributing different subsets of the plurality of keys to different computing devices in the plurality of computing devices.
17
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause a machine to perform operations comprising: accessing a plurality of computer nodes associated with a networked system for processing a transaction, the networked system deployed according to a configuration determined based on computation characteristics associated with the networked system and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes, the configuration specifying a key distribution of a plurality of keys for processing the transaction across the plurality of computer nodes; determining an order of the plurality of computer nodes for processing the transaction based on the key distribution of the plurality of keys across the plurality of computer nodes; and instructing the plurality of computer nodes to process respective portions of the transaction using respective subsets of the plurality of keys according to the order.
8
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause a machine to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to configure a networked system for performing a computation; determining a plurality of computing devices associated with the networked system based on the request; determining computation characteristics associated with the computation and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computing devices; determining a configuration for the networked system based on the computation characteristics and the device characteristics, wherein the configuration specifies a minimum number of computing devices, among the plurality of computing devices, required to perform the computation; and deploying the networked system based on the configuration, wherein the deploying comprises distributing different subsets of a plurality of keys to different computing devices in the plurality of computing devices.
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 limitation “…a plurality of computer nodes associated with a networked system that is configured to perform the transaction..”, in claim 9 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. “Network system” is interpreted as Network 160 of drawing Figure 1. Paragraph 36 of specification describes the Network 160 as “the network 160 may include the Internet and/or one or more intranets, landline networks, wireless networks, and/or other appropriate types of communication networks. In another example, the network 160 may comprise a wireless telecommunications network (e.g., cellular phone network) adapted to communicate with other communication networks, such as the Internet”. Thus Network is describes as wired or wireless. It is not clear whether the “Network 160” has definite structure or not. 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.
Claims 2-21 – Objected
Claims 2-21 are objected to as being allowable if the Double Patenting Rejection is overcome. The following is an examiner’s statement of reason for allowance.
The reference by Rainer Falk (US PGPUB. # US 2020/0151340) discloses, a method for monitoring a blockchain including the following steps: evaluating a characteristic of a physical infrastructure on which the blockchain is based; comparing the determined evaluation to a predetermined parameter; and outputting a signal if the evaluation is less than the predetermined parameter. (Abstract). Falk, further discloses, monitoring a blockchain 105. The method 200 is set up, in particular, to run on the apparatus 125 from FIG. 1 and or on the processing device 130 thereof which can comprise a programmable microcomputer or microprocessor, for example. The method 200 can be in the form of a computer program product (non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions, which when executed by a processor, perform actions) with program code means. Features or advantages of the method 200 can be based on the apparatus 125 or vice versa. (¶41). In a step 220, it is possible to determine one or more nodes 115 which are included in the infrastructure 110. In a step 215, one or more of the determined nodes 115 can be sensed. The sensing can be carried out actively by communicating with the node 115 or passively by determining information relating to the node 115. Furthermore, one or more transactions which are carried out on the blockchain 105 can be determined or observed in a step 220. In a step 225, communication information relating to one or more nodes 115 can be determined. This information can relate, for example, to a bandwidth used for the requirements of the blockchain 105, a number or frequency of particular messages or address information relating to the node 115 or communication with the node 115. The determined information can be stored in the storage apparatus 140 in a step 230 and/or can be brought into context with information previously stored there. (Fig. 2, ¶43). The determined information is assessed in a step 235 by assigning a quantitatively comparable, such as a numerical value to an item of information indicating a predetermined characteristic of the infrastructure 110. One or more assessments are compared with one or more parameters 145 in a step 240. By way of example, it is assumed that a high assessment of a characteristic indicates a positive influence of the infrastructure 110 on the security or availability of the blockchain 105 and a lower assessment indicates a less positive influence. A measure of security and/or availability of the blockchain 105 can therefore be determined on the basis of the determined assessment(s). (¶44).
The reference by Lindell et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2020/0084048) discloses, a system for securing digital transactions provided by a person operating a third-party computerized device designed to communicate with a multiparty signing system. The multiparty signing system may comprise a signing subsystem comprising a multiparty signing server designed to receive a request for digital signing and a first subset of end-user nodes designed to generate a group of key shares which can be utilized in MPC processes conducted by the multiparty signing server. The multiparty signing system may also comprise an approving subsystem designed for generating groups of key shares to approve the digital transactions. The approving subsystem may comprise a coordinator and a second subset of end-user nodes for generating groups of key shares. The multiparty signing server may be configured to receive from a third-party server a transaction to sign and to send a first request to the coordinator to receive a first group of key shares. (Abstract). At step 305 a digital vault denoted as D.sub.0 generates an encryption key pair of a public key denoted as PPK and private key denoted as PSK. The digital vault may be a dedicated server computer comprising hardware storage device for storing data, which in some cases may be accessible only by dedicated server computers. The digital vault may be connected to an End-user-key-protection-server which may conduct the authorization processes for the digital vault. For example, the End-user-key-protection-server may operate an authorization mechanism which controls the authorization rules. The End-user-key-protection-server may be configured to access the digital vault upon a successful authorization process. At step 310 D.sub.0 may send the PPK to two servers, D.sub.1 and D.sub.2, which can be configured to generate an encrypted signature by utilizing and MPC protocol. In such cases, D.sub.1 and D.sub.2 can also be configured to utilize the PPK for the generation of the encrypted signature. At step 315 D.sub.0 may send the private key PSK generated at step 305 to the End-user-key-protection-server denoted as D.sub.3. At step 320 D.sub.3 can define the required parameters of the predefined threshold decryption, which encodes the authorization rules corresponding for digital signing processes. In such cases, D.sub.3 may define the rules required for each predefined threshold decryption process. For example, D.sub.3 may be configured to require a certain number of end-user nodes to decrypt the encrypted signature by participating in the MPC process and thereby approve a deposit of 100 bitcoins in the digital vault D.sub.0. In such an exemplary case, the certain number of end-user nodes may be the predefined threshold requirements of the threshold decryption, in order to approve the 100 bitcoins deposit. In some embodiments of the present invention, D.sub.3 may be configured to define different roles in the MPC decryption. For example, D.sub.3 may define two node-groups of end-user nodes and define the threshold requirements. D.sub.3 may define that a certain number of end-user nodes in each node-group may be the minimum required number of end-user nodes for the threshold decryption, such that a 300 bitcoins transaction from a the D.sub.0 to a third party is approved. In such an exemplary case, D.sub.3 may define the number of end-user nodes from each node-group, required for the threshold decryption, which approve the transaction. D.sub.3 may also define other end-user nodes with different authorization roles. For example, D.sub.3 may define a certain end-user node which can overrule a transaction approval process, such that a transaction can be approved in case an end-user node having overrule rights, approves the transaction and the other end-user nodes disapprove the transaction. In some configurations of D.sub.3, a transaction can be disapproved in case an end-user node having overrule rights, disapproves the transaction and the other end-user nodes approve the transaction. In some cases, an MPC decryption process between the end-user node and the End-user-key-protection-server, which yields a successful decryption of the signed transaction details, may be considered as an approval of the digital transaction. In some embodiments of the present invention, D.sub.3 may be configured with multiple types of authorization roles. The authorization rules of the authorization rules may be encoded in the digital identification process such that a transaction may be approved or disapproved as part of the end-user node digital encryption process. For example, the privilege to approve a deposit of digital currency in a digital vault may be granted to a portion of end-user nodes. In such cases, D.sub.3 may require an approval to execute a transaction from at least a predefined number of end-user nodes which are granted with the privileges to approve such a transaction. In some cases, D.sub.3 may also be configured to identify customers. In such cases, the customers may be the persons which are granted with the privilege to initiate a transaction of electronic digitized data such as document access, digital transaction approvals, access to multimedia data, and the like. At step 325 D.sub.3 generates key shares of the PSK, with the end-user nodes. In some cases, D.sub.3 may utilize an MPC configured to jointly compute with the end-user nodes two or more shares of the PSK. The key shares generated by D.sub.3 may be then stored and associated with the end-user node in a dedicated storage associated with D.sub.3. In such cases, the end-user nodes receive only a portion of the PSK such that the physical device cannot compromise the PSK, and the PSK decryption may be performed without ever bringing the entire PSK together in one place. The generation of the PSK shares may follow the different roles in the threshold decryption. For example, D.sub.3 may generate different key shares with different end-user nodes in different node-groups, in accordance with the different roles of the threshold decryption. At step 330 the end-user nodes receive and store the key shares of the PSK, according to the defined parameters for the threshold decryption. In such cases, the end-user may be able to utilize the stored key shares in MPC decryption with D.sub.3. At step 335 an MPC process may be conducted between D.sub.1 and D.sub.2, to generate an encrypted signing key which can be utilized to MPC-generate encrypted signatures. (Fig. 3, ¶41-¶46).
Belezank et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0318907, priority based on continuing application 16/510,918) filed on 07/14/2019) discloses, one or more user devices may include a private key (e.g., key 212) and/or digital signature. For example, system 200 may use cryptographic systems for conducting blockchain operations based on MPC key systems. For example, system 200 may use public-key cryptography, which features a pair of digital keys (e.g., which may comprise strings of data). In such cases, each pair comprises a public key (e.g., which may be public) and a private key (e.g., which may be kept private). System 200 may generate the key pairs using cryptographic algorithms (e.g., featuring one-way functions). System 200 may then encrypt a message (or other blockchain operation) using an intended receiver's public key such that the encrypted message may be decrypted only with the receiver's corresponding private key. In some embodiments, system 200 may combine a message with a private key to create a digital signature on the message. For example, the digital signature may be used to verify the authenticity of blockchain operations. As an illustration, when conducting blockchain operations, system 200 may use the digital signature to prove to every node in the system that it is authorized to conduct the blockchain operations. (Fig. 2, ¶45). FIG. 2 may represent a series of components and/or interactions between user devices in a multi-party computation key system. For example, user device 202 may initiate a blockchain operation using a multi-party computation key system. For example, user device 202 may send a signing request to a system coordinator (e.g., user device 210). In this embodiment, user device 210, acting as the system coordinator, may maintain custodial access of one or more private keys (or partial private keys in an MPC key system utilizing partial private keys) for the MPC key system. For example, the system coordinator may act as a remote server (or a network of computing devices) that hosts a custodial platform for blockchain operations. User device 202 may transmit a signing request to user device 210. The signature request may be based on a private key owner (e.g., keychain) requesting a digital signature algorithm (e.g., Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) or a threshold-based ECDSA) from the coordinator. Once signature production completes, user device 210 may transmit a valid ECDSA signature back to user device 202. To do so, the system (e.g., user device 210) may coordinate with other user devices in the MPC key system. For example, user device 210 may forward messages (e.g., based on the initial signing request) to various other user devices in the MPC key system. Each forwarded message may request in round data being returned from the other user devices that comprises a message with each user device's contribution to the key-signing process. Each user device (e.g., a cosigner to the requested blockchain operation) thus communicates with the centralized communicator (e.g., user device 210) to facilitate the MPC key-signing ceremony and cause the blockchain operation to be completed based on the signing request. (¶51-¶52).
However, none of the art teaches, the limitations regarding, “……the networked system deployed according to a configuration determined based on computation characteristics associated with the networked system and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes, the configuration specifying (i) a minimum number of computer nodes, among the plurality of computer nodes, to perform the multi-party computation and (ii) a key distribution of a plurality of keys for performing the multi-party computation across the plurality of computer nodes..”, for Claim 2. “……the networked system deployed according to a configuration determined based on computation characteristics associated with the networked system and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes, the configuration specifying a key distribution of a plurality of keys for performing the transaction across the plurality of computer nodes..”, for Claim 8. “…..the networked system deployed according to a configuration determined based on computation characteristics associated with the networked system and device characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes, the configuration specifying a key distribution of a plurality of keys for processing the transaction across the plurality of computer nodes..”, for Claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Shashank Mohan Jian (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0158980) discloses, a method for a cloud computing environment. A proxy platform data store may contain node data associated with nodes of the cloud computing environment. Each node might, for example, store multi-party computation information. A proxy platform, able to access the proxy platform data store, may detect that a first node needs to access a cloud application secret key and determine, based on information in the proxy platform data store, a set of nodes associated with the secret key that the first node needs to access. The proxy platform may then use a multi-party computation algorithm and information received from the set of nodes to generate the secret key.
Badrinarayan et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2021/0391987) discloses, several round-efficient solitary multi-party computation protocols with guaranteed output delivery are disclosed. A plurality of input devices and an output device can collectively perform a computation using methods such as fully homomorphic encryption. The output of the computation is only known to the output device. Some number of these devices may be corrupt. However, even in the presence of corrupt devices, the output device can still either generate a correct output or identify that the computation was compromised. These protocols operate under different assumptions regarding the communication infrastructure (e.g., broadcast vs point-to-point), the number of participating devices, and the number of corrupt devices. These protocols are round-efficient in that they require a minimal number of communication rounds to calculate the result of the multi-party computation.
Veenignen et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2017/0373937) discloses, a coordinator node for coordinating a multiparty computation (MPC) on one or more datasets. The system comprises a plurality of client nodes, one or more datasets and a plurality of computation nodes. Client nodes may include at least one dataset and/or at least one computation node that can operate as a party to an MPC. The coordinator node is configured to receive a request for an MPC on one or more of the datasets from a requesting node, the MPC including the evaluation of at least one function by two or more computation nodes from different client nodes; determine a computation schedule for the MPC, the computation schedule indicating which client nodes of the plurality of client nodes are to participate in the MPC; send at least part of the determined computation schedule to at least one of the client nodes indicated in the determined computation schedule.
Wright et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2021/0359846) discloses, methods for generating min-increment counting bloom filters to determine count and frequency of device identifiers and attributes in a networking environment are disclosed. The system can maintain a set of data records including device identifiers and attributes associated with device in a network. The system can generate a vector comprising coordinates corresponding to counter registers. The system can identify hash functions to update a counting bloom filter. The system can hash the data records to extract index values pointing to a set of counter registers. The system can increment the positions in the min-increment counting bloom filter corresponding to the minimum values of the counter registers. The system can obtain an aggregated public key comprising a public key. The system can encrypt the counter registers using the aggregated shared key to generate an encrypted vector. The system can transmit the encrypted vector to a networked worker computing device.
Thisjs Veugen (US PGPUB. # US 2019/0205568) discloses, a method for secure random selection of t client devices from a set of N client devices and methods for secure computation of inputs of t client devices randomly selected from N client devices are described. Such random selection method may include determining an initial binary vector b of weight t by setting the first t bits to one: b.sub.i=1, 1 ≤i≤t, and all further bits to zero: b.sub.i=0, t<i≤N; each client device i (i=1, . . . , N) of the set of N client devices jointly generating a random binary vector b of weight t in an obfuscated domain on the basis of the initial binary vector b including: determining a position n in the binary vector; determining a random number r in {n,n+1, . . . N}; and, using the random number to swap binary values at positions n and r of the binary vector b.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARSHAN I DHRUV whose telephone number is (571)272-4316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/DARSHAN I DHRUV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights