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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application received on 01/07/2026. In the RCE, claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 remain original. No claim has been cancelled and no new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1-20 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s remarks in light of the amended claims have been reviewed, however, remarks are not found to be persuasive. After review, the remarks have been summarized as follows:
The claimed invention thus recites a combination of elements which improves the functioning of a memory controller to cause allocate addresses for a process in multiple memory pools. Further, the processing operations recited within the context of the claimed invention are in conjunction with a particular combination of elements that are integral to the claim and cause generate a SNOW3 S1 box and S2 box of key initialization and keystream generation for a SNOW3 cipher operation and perform the SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on the generated keystream. Moreover, the claimed invention recites meaningful limitations such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any exception. The claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem of performing a SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on a generated keystream (Page # 7-8).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 1, that “the claimed invention thus recites a combination of elements which improves the functioning of a memory controller to cause allocate addresses for a process in multiple memory pools”, examiner respectfully disagree. Considering the amended claim language, the limitations merely recite “executing AES instruction, having an opcode, on operands, wherein the AES instruction is to generate a SNOW3 S1 box and S2 box of key initialization and keystream generation for a SNOW3 cipher operation and perform the SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on the generated keystream”.
The amended claim language is devoid of disclosing any practical application and/or improvement of the functioning of a memory controller to cause allocate addresses for a process in multiple memory pools, as alleged by the Applicant. Instead, the claim recites the steps of an algorithm which is primarily written on the paper and pen using human minds capability to express how the steps of algorithm will function. Nowhere in the amended language discloses that improves computer functionality, solves a specific technical problem, or provides a tangible real-world benefit may qualify for patent protection. The key is demonstrating that the invention is more than a mere abstract concept and instead provides a novel and “inventive concept.”
As mentioned in the remarks by the Applicant, that the amended claim language merely recite a particular combination of elements that are integral to the claim and cause generate a SNOW3 S1 box and S2 box of key initialization and keystream generation for a SNOW3 cipher operation and perform the SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on the generated keystream, however, as examiner highlighted above, the particular combination of elements fail to recite meaningful limitations that provides a technical solution to a technical problem of performing a SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on a generated keystream.
Based on above explanation and interpretation, the amended claim still recites an Abstract Idea and therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Dependent claims 8-9, and 17-18 preambles recite “wherein the performing the SNOW3 cipher operation … comprises:”. Examiner find this a typographical mistake because grammatically the sentence does not make sense with “the performing the …”.
Examiner notes that the preambles should be drafted as “wherein [[the]] performing the SNOW3 cipher operation … comprises:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a non-transitory computer storage media, and a method” claims.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the abstract idea which falls into the categories of Mathematical Concepts performing mathematical formulas and calculations. The limitations recite Abstract Idea as follows:
“execute at least one Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) instruction, having an operation code (opcode), wherein execution of the at least one AES instruction is to generate a SNOW3 S1 box and S2 box keystream generation for a SNOW3 cipher operation and perform the SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on the generated keystream, and output the data subject to the SNOW3 cipher operation [[to a processor or to a memory]], wherein:
execution of the AES instruction is to utilize logical operation [[circuitry, buffers, and registers accessible to the one or more processors]]”.
The claim generically recites the steps or computations that can be actually be performed mentally or with a pen and paper. The above limitations recite steps which clearly fall into the bucket of Mathematical Concepts performing mathematical formulas and calculations. Nowhere in the amended language discloses that improves computer functionality, solves a specific technical problem, or provides a tangible real-world benefit may qualify for patent protection. The key is demonstrating that the invention is more than a mere abstract concept and instead provides a novel and “inventive concept.”
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., execute at least one Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) instruction, having an operation code (opcode), wherein execution of the at least one AES instruction is to generate a SNOW3 S1 box and S2 box of key initialization and keystream generation for a SNOW3 cipher operation and perform the SNOW3 cipher operation on data based on the generated keystream) is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“circuitry, buffers, and registers accessible to the one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors” (claim 1 and 19), and “a method comprising: executing, on at least one processor, … instructions” (claim 10).
Recitation of these additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field instead recite elements which are considered an improvement to the Abstract Idea itself.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant PGPub spec. [0050]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do 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 claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors” (claim 1 and 20), and “a method comprising: executing, on at least one processor, … instructions” (claim 10) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant spec. [0050]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. [0050]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice through attached NPL document title “Analysis and Implementation of the SNOW 3G Generator Used in 4G/LTE Systems” describing the theoretical implementation of SNOW3 algorithm on paper, as it is a well-defined cryptographic algorithm with a published specification and detailed operational description.
Therefore, the use of these additional elements identified in the independent claims individually or in combination, does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 have been analyzed and fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the claims fail to recite any limitations that create a difference in the 101 analyses as indicated for independent claims.
Overall analysis of the claims 1-20 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a category of Mathematical Concepts performing mathematical formulas and calculations performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shay et al., US20160119126A1
Mundra et al., US20120011351A1
Jezabel et al., NPL - Analysis and implementation of the SNOW 3G generator used in 4G/LTE systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491