Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application #19/208,892 filed on 05/15/2025 in which Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending, of which Claims 1-22 would be considered allowable over prior art if it were not for Double Patenting Rejections on Claims 1-22 and the Claim Objections on Claims 1, 12, 19.
Applicant’s Most Recent Claim Set of 05/15/2025
Applicant’s most recent claim set of 05/15/2025 is considered to be the latest claim set under consideration by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1, this claim is objected to for lack of antecedent basis. This claim recites the phrase “the other party’s” in Line(s) 13. This “the other party’s” is not defined in Claim 1, or any potential parent claims to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, this claim is objected to for lack of antecedent basis. This claim recites the phrase “the other party’s” in Line(s) 11. This “the other party’s” is not defined in Claim 12, or any potential parent claims to Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is objected to for an apparent typographical error. This claim is dependent on Claim 1, which appears to be a typographical error, for the purposes of this examination this claim is construed to be dependent on Claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 (is/are) of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 15 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19,208,924. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application’s related U.S. Patent Application No. 19,208,924’s claims 1, 6, 10, 15 are obvious over claims 1, 5-6, 12 and 16-17 of the instant application
With respect to claim(s) 1-22 of the instant application, please refer to the table below, which illustrates the anticipatory relationship of the claim limitations at issue:
Instant application
U.S. Patent Application No. 19,208,924
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 12
Claim 10
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 17
Claim 15
The instant application’s dependent claims are rejected on the basic of being dependent on a rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 are considered allowable over prior art.
The instant invention is directed to an implementation of private set intersection in distributed databases.
The closest prior art, as recited, Xu et al US Patent Application No. 2023/0401331 and Patel et al US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0004654, are also generally directed to various aspects of providing private set intersection in distributed databases. However, Xu et al or Patel et al does not teach or suggest, either singularly or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claim(s) 1, 12. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests the steps of:
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the combination of Xu et al and Patel et al teaches various aspects regarding providing private set intersection in distributed databases, Xu et al or Patel et al fails to teach a distributed database system, including at least one processor, operatively connected to a memory, the at least one processor configured to:execute a dynamic structured encryption scheme including: transformation of plaintext data into a structured encryption format; instantiation of an updatable set datatype with the structured encryption format; and cryptographic operations configured to: perform updates on a first party encrypted data set by the first party maintained by a second party, perform updates on a second party encrypted data set by the second party maintained by the first party, and execute queries on the other party's encrypted data set to return an intersection of the first party and second party encrypted data sets based on query target.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Although the combination of Xu et al and Patel et al teaches various aspects regarding providing private set intersection in distributed databases, Xu et al or Patel et al fails to teach A computer implemented method for managing a distributed database system, the method comprising: executing, by at least one processor, a dynamic structured encryption scheme including: transforming plaintext data into a structured encryption format; instantiating an updatable set datatype with the structured encryption format; and executing cryptographic operations, including: performing updates on a first party encrypted data set by the first party maintained by a second party, performing updates on a second party encrypted data set by the second party maintained by the first party, and executing queries on the other party's encrypted data set to return an intersection of the first party and second party encrypted data sets based on query target.
When combined with the additional limitations found in Claim 12.
Therefore Claims 1-22 of the instant application are considered allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poorebrahim et al - US_ 2023/0244650 teaches INTERSECTION
BETWEEN PRIVATE DATA SETS.
Nagaraj et al - US_2022/0222366 PRIVATE SET INTERSECTION (PSI) TECHNIQUES WITH MULTIPLE PARTIES.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY HOLDER whose telephone number is 571-270-3789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571) 270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W HOLDER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights