DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 09/29/2025 for application number 17/765,440. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Applicant’s Remarks, and Claim, Abstract, and Drawing amendments
Examiner Notes the following: claims 6-9 has been amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/29/2025, with respect to the Drawing, Abstract, and Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing, Abstract, and Claim Objections of the Office Action mailed 07/30/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see p.11 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/29/25, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 6, the applicant argues that “secure computation” is a computation method that allows doing calculations while data is encrypted and performing and that the features in the claims of this application (i.e. calculation of odds ratios in secure computation) represents a technological improvement to cryptography and secure computation technologies. However, the use of secure computation is effectively applying more mathematical operations to compute basic operations on encrypted data and the improvement comes from the mathematical operations taken. As such, it is merely a form of mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas and the improvement is merely a consequence of the mathematical operations that fall under “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion to the contrary for at least the reason above and below for 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments, see p.12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/29/25, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 6, the applicant argues that the feature of directly calculating the odds ratio offers a specific technical advantage of reducing computational cost. However, the computation of odds ratio using encrypted data is merely just mathematical calculations and relationships. As such, it is merely a form of mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas and the improvement is merely a consequence of the mathematical operations that fall under “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion to the contrary for at least the reason above and below for 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments, see p.12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/29/25, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 6, the applicant argues that the processing circuitry is a special device to perform the specific functions exceeding mere instructions using generic computer components for implementing an abstract idea. However, the applicant is claiming the device at a high-level of generality and is not claiming a specific improved circuit that is more than just a general circuit for doing an operation. As such, the processing circuitry is merely a generic device performing mere instructions to execute the functions. See Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion to the contrary for at least the reason above and below for 35 U.S.C. 101.
In conclusion, Applicant's arguments, see p.11-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/29/25, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained for the reasons given above and below for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Drawings
In view of the objection of the specification below, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they need to be consistent with the claims and specifications to show the ciphertexts as described (wherein once the specification objections are overcome, ciphertexts will refer to, for example, a set of double curly brackets instead of double brackets). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to under rule 1.121(c)(2), wherein “the text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived”. The use of double brackets is unclear, as it refers to the above statement and refers to ciphertext(s). As the use of double brackets would make it unclear for publication purposes as it makes the ciphertext unclear to the person preparing any patent for printing, as it would make it unclear if the ciphertext should be deleted or not. Which will result in missing ciphertext that would be needed for understanding the subject matter, if this application goes to publication.
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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claims 6 and 7 respectively recites an computation apparatus and, therefore, are a machine. Claims 8 and 9 respectively recites a computation method and, therefore, are a process. Claims 10 and 11 respectively recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and, therefore, are an article of manufacture.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites:
A computation apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
execute an odds ratio computation processing in which the processing circuitry obtains an odds ratio between a first group (a+b) and a second group (c+d) based on four plaintext values a, b, c, and d, using secure computation;
execute a zero-division detection processing in which the processing circuitry determines, using secure computation, whether or not at least one of the plaintext values b and c is not zero, and detects division by zero; and
a selection processing in which the processing circuitry selects the odds ratio if division by zero is not detected, using secure computation,
wherein in the odds ratio computation processing the processing circuitry obtains ciphertexts {{o'1}} and {{o'2}} of results o'1 and o'2 of calculating a/b and d/c, respectively, using secure computation, and thereafter obtains a ciphertext {{o'}} of a result o' of calculating o'1xo'2.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating the odds ratio and comparisons for detecting division by zero which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under the “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas (see specification paragraphs 2, 20-29, and 35-45). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 6 recites the following additional element: “[a] processing circuitry” However, the additional element of “[a] processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication, division, and zero checking) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 6 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 element of “[a] processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication, division, and zero checking) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claim 10 recite the same steps and details to calculating the odds ratio and comparisons for detecting division by zero which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under the “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. Wherein claim 10, is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with a program to execute the abstract idea of claim 6. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 10 recites the following additional elements: “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program” and “a computer”. However, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program” and “a computer” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; and as a generic computer component for executing instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 10 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program” and “a computer” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; and as a generic computer component for executing instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites:
A computation apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
take ciphertexts {{a}}, {{b}}, {{c}}, and {{d}} of plaintext values a, b, c, and d as input, and obtain ciphertexts {{o'1}} and {{o'2}} of results o'1 and o'2 of calculating a/b and d/c, respectively, by {{o'1}}<-{{a}}/{{b}} and {{o'2}} <-{{d}}/{{c}}, using secure computation;
take the ciphertexts {{o'1}} and {{o'2}} as input and obtain a ciphertext {{o'}} of a result o' of computation of plaintext values o'1xo'2 by {{o'}}<-{{o'1}}x{{o'2}}, using secure computation;
take the ciphertexts {{b}} and {{c}} as input and obtain ciphertexts {{f1}} and {{f2}} of truth values f1 and f2 with predicates b=?0 and c=?0, respectively, by {{fi}}<-{{b}}=?{{0}} and {{f2}}<-{{c}}=?{{0}}, using secure computation;
take the ciphertexts {{f1}} and {{f2}} as input and obtain a ciphertext {{f}} of a result f of calculating f1 Or f2 by {{f}}<-Or({{f1}}, {{f2}}), using secure computation; and
take the ciphertexts {{f}} and {{o'}} as input and obtain a ciphertext {{o}} of o that satisfies
o
=
⊥
i
f
f
=
1
o
'
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
by {{o}}<-IfElse({{f}}, {{
⊥
}}, {{o'}}), using secure computation, wherein
⊥
indicates an invalid value.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating the odds ratio and comparisons for detecting division by zero which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under the “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas (see specification paragraphs 2, 20-29, and 35-45). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 7 recites the following additional element: “[a] processing circuitry” However, the additional element of “[a] processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication, division, and zero checking) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 7 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 element of “[a] processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication, division, and zero checking) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claim 11 recite the same steps and details to calculating the odds ratio and comparisons for detecting division by zero which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under the “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. Wherein claim 11, is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with a program to execute the abstract idea of claim 7. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 11 recites the following additional elements: “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program” and “a computer”. However, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program” and “a computer” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; and as a generic computer component for executing instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 11 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program” and “a computer” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; and as a generic computer component for executing instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Method claims 8 and 9 corresponds to apparatus claims 6 and 7, respectively. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. Method claims 8 and 9 are therefore rejected for the reasons given above for apparatus claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 2:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Tuesday to Thursday, and 8:00 am to 4:00pm on Friday ET.
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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights