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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.71(a) which requires “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. The following should be corrected.
A. In claim 21 lines 4-5, “a secret key” should read “the secret key” instead because a secret key is already introduced in claim 1 line 6 from which the claim depends.
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, 3-5, 8-15 and 19-23 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 “generating an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to the preset arithmetic circuit to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” in lines 15-17. It is unclear how generating an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to the preset arithmetic circuit verifies the output homomorphic ciphertext. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “generating an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to the preset arithmetic circuit and generating the first polynomial function to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” as described in at least paragraphs [0066 and 0214]. Claims 3-5 and 21-23 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
Claim 5 recites “the generating the first polynomial function” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that amending claim 1 as interpreted above would resolve the antecedent basis issue in claim 5.
Claim 8 recites “receiving an output homomorphic ciphertext generated by reflecting an input homomorphic ciphertext to a preset arithmetic circuit to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” in lines 4-7. It is unclear how generating an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to a preset arithmetic circuit verifies the output homomorphic ciphertext. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “receiving an output homomorphic ciphertext generated by reflecting an input homomorphic ciphertext to a preset arithmetic circuit and receiving a first polynomial function to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” as described in at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0215]. Claims 9-12 inherit the same deficiency as claim 8 by reason of dependence.
Claim 13 recites “generate an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to the preset arithmetic circuit to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” in lines 18-21. It is unclear how generating an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to the preset arithmetic circuit verifies the output homomorphic ciphertext. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “generate an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to the preset arithmetic circuit and generate the first polynomial function to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” as described in at least paragraphs [0066 and 0214]. Claims 14-15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 13 by reason of dependence.
Claim 19 recites “based on receiving an output homomorphic ciphertext generated by reflecting an input homomorphic ciphertext to a preset arithmetic circuit to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext, wherein …” in lines 4-7. It is unclear how generating an output homomorphic ciphertext by reflecting the input homomorphic ciphertext to a preset arithmetic circuit verifies the output homomorphic ciphertext. Claim 20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 19 by reason of dependence.
Furthermore, this limitation is unclear because it appears to be incomplete as there are no additional steps that are performed contingent upon the “based on …” limitation. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “receiving an output homomorphic ciphertext generated by reflecting an input homomorphic ciphertext to a preset arithmetic circuit and receiving a first polynomial function to verify the output homomorphic ciphertext” as described in at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0215]. Claim 20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 19 by reason of dependence.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the input homomorphic ciphertext is decrypted in a form satisfying a following formula: Dec(ct, sk) = <ct, sk> = M+e(mod q),where <, > denotes a usual inner product, ct denotes a ciphertext, sk denotes a secret key, M denotes plaintext message, e denotes an encryption error value, and mod q denotes Modulus of the ciphertext”. This limitation is unclear because it recites a formula how the input homomorphic ciphertext is decrypted, however, the recited formula does not include the input homomorphic ciphertext. It is unclear whether ct is supposed to be interpreted as the input homomorphic ciphertext. Further clarification is required.
Further, it is unclear whether “the ciphertext” recited in line 9 is meant to refer to the input homomorphic ciphertext or the ciphertext denoted as ct in the formula. Further clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-15 and 19-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are the same reasons provided in the non-final office action submitted on 08/28/2024.
Response to Arguments
The amendments made raises new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 12-16, filed 10/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-15 and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-15 and 19-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-5767