DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-4 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being directed to unclear subject matter.
5. Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the secure computation apparatus includes" in 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The line above, line 7 recites “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses”, but line 8 does not refer back to one of the plurality of apparatuses.
6. Claim 3 recites “The secure computation apparatus used in the secure selective product computation system according to claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a plurality of secure computation apparatuses. Claim 3 does not refer back to one of the plurality of apparatuses.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected as to claim 3 above for failing to overcome the deficiencies found in the claim from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As analyzed under the current 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; first, the claim is directed to a proper statutory category. Second, under step 2A prong 1, the claim is directed to abstract ideas; specifically mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations and/or mental processes. They are highlighted below (underlined, italicized):
1. A secure selective product computation system for receiving a sequence of share values [co], ..., [cn-1] of n conditions co, ..., cn - 1 and a binary table including multipliers mo,o, mo1, ..., mn-1,0, and mn-1,1 associating two multipliers of the multipliers with each of the conditions as inputs, and outputting a share value [A] of a total product of the multipliers selected according to the conditions, the secure selective product computation system comprising:
a plurality of secure computation apparatuses wherein the secure computation apparatus includes processing circuitry configured to:
calculate share values [cici +1] obtained by multiplying the share values [ci] and the share values [ci+1] where i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
generate a 4-value table including m'00, m'01,m'10, and m'11 where m'00:= mi,0mi+1,0, m'0i:= mi,0mi+ 1,1, m'i0:= mi,lmi+1,o, and m'11:=mi,1mi+ 1,1 and i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
generate share values [ai] of values ai obtained by calculating [cici+1](m00 + m11- m01 – m10) + [ci](mi+ 1,0-mi,0) + [ci+ 1](mi,1 - mi,0) + mi,0 where i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
calculate a share value [A] of a value A obtained by multiplying all the share values [ai]; and
multiply the share value [A] by a multiplier selected from multipliers mn-1,1 and mn-1,0 according to a condition cn - 1 when n is an odd number.
9. As currently recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these highlighted limitations can be interpreted as mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, or even by pen and paper.
Next, under step 2A prong 2, are there additional elements or combination of elements that apply or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The additional limitation of “secure selective product computation system” and “a plurality of secure computation apparatuses wherein the secure computation apparatus includes processing circuitry” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic machine) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further the claim recites “receiving” and “outputting.” However, these steps are recited as a general means of receiving/outputting data for use by the abstract idea, and thus fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining steps. Such data receiving/outputting operations could be attached to any calculation and is necessary for use of the judicial exception, amounting to mere gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Lastly, under step 2B are there limitations indicative of an inventive concept (i.e. significantly more)? No, the additional limitations 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 additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, receiving/outputting data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception represents mere data gathering/data output and is insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have found these limitations recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEPE 2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
10. Claims 2 is rejected for similar reasons as presented above with reference to claim 1 as the recite the similar abstract ideas found in claim 1 above, as claim 2 is the method of claim 1. Thus, the claim is directed to the same abstract ideas without reciting meaningful limitations that are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non- statutory for at least the reason stated above, as they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend. The claims depend from claim 1, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite further limitations that abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental steps without reciting any additional limitations that make the claim any less abstract or that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
11. Claim 3 recites the abstract idea of “The secure computation apparatus used in the secure selective product computation system according to claim 1,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
12. Claim 4 recites the abstract idea of “a non-transitory computer recording medium on which a program for causing a computer to operate as the secure computation apparatus according to claim 3,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims recite at least generate a 4-value table including m'00, m'01,m'10, and m'11 where m'00:= mi,0mi+1,0, m'0i:= mi,0mi+ 1,1, m'i0:= mi,lmi+1,o, and m'11:=mi,1mi+ 1,1 and i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
generate share values [ai] of values ai obtained by calculating [cici+1](m00 + m11- m01 – m10) + [ci](mi+ 1,0-mi,0) + [ci+ 1](mi,1 - mi,0) + mi,0 where i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
calculate a share value [A] of a value A obtained by multiplying all the share values [ai]; and
multiply the share value [A] by a multiplier selected from multipliers mn-1,1 and mn-1,0 according to a condition cn - 1 when n is an odd number.
The closest prior art of record WO2018036967 is related to an electronic module and a method for calculating a mathematical operation having a multiplicity of differently configured calculation units. The present invention may relate to a use of the electronic module or the method in a safety-critical environment, for example in the field of cryptography. However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest at least generate a 4-value table including m'00, m'01,m'10, and m'11 where m'00:= mi,0mi+1,0, m'0i:= mi,0mi+ 1,1, m'i0:= mi,lmi+1,o, and m'11:=mi,1mi+ 1,1 and i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
generate share values [ai] of values ai obtained by calculating [cici+1](m00 + m11- m01 – m10) + [ci](mi+ 1,0-mi,0) + [ci+ 1](mi,1 - mi,0) + mi,0 where i is an even number equal to or greater than 0 or smaller than n;
calculate a share value [A] of a value A obtained by multiplying all the share values [ai]; and
multiply the share value [A] by a multiplier selected from multipliers mn-1,1 and mn-1,0 according to a condition cn - 1 when n is an odd number.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D YAARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL D. YAARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151