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
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, 17-22, 24, and 25. The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 11 and 23.
Amendments to the Claims
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims.
Interview Summary
The Examiner acknowledges and generally agrees with the applicant’s summary of the interview held on 04/20/2026. However, the Examiner notes that the Supervisory Patent Examiner Andrew Caldwell was not in attendance to the interview. The Examiner participants of the interview were Examiner Jerome Klosterman II, and Primary Examiner Emily Larocque.
Objections to the Drawings
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 22, and withdraws the objection to the drawings due to amendment to the claim. See new reasons for objection, due to amendments to the claims, below.
35 U.S.C. 112
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims, and cancellation of claims 11 and 23. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections from claims 11 and 23 due to cancellation of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections to claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24-25 due to amendments to the claims. See new reasons for rejections, due to amendments to the claims, below.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments.
The applicant seemingly states, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 3), that the amended independent claims are directed to verifying a modular correction of a modular multiplication and recite concrete steps that operate in a specific technical context to produce a technological result. The applicant continues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 4), seemingly reciting much of the amended independent claim 1.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 4 through page 13 paragraph 1), that the steps (of the amended claim 1) do not merely recite mathematical relationships in the abstract, that they define a specific test-data-generation process tied to the behavior of modular correction logic and are expressly directed to verification of that logic at correction boundaries, which the specification identifies as the most error-prone operational region. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps the applicant seemingly is referring to are found on Remarks page 12 paragraph 4, “receiving…an intermediate result generated by a multiplier unit, the intermediate result obtained from a coarse-grained modular correction on a binary multiplication of two operands A, B, wherein the intermediate result is within a range CR partitioned into a plurality of intervals…; selecting…a pair of intervals…and defining a sub-interval around a boundary at which the selected intervals change; selecting…a value V in the sub-interval; using…a first factorization algorithm for the value V for determining operands A’, B’, wherein a modular multiplication result R’ of the operands A’ and B’ corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval; in response to determining…that additional test operands are required for the value V, for each additional test operand: determining…A’ plus varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values as A” values; and determining…B” values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval thereby generating a test operand data A” and B”.” Within these steps the applicant seemingly is referring to above, the only additional elements (under the Alice Framework) is the “multiplier unit”, which is a generic computing device (without a defined structure as to what structure performs the functionality it is described to perform), where the generic computing device (“multiplier unit”) is merely generally linked to the mental process, and mathematical concepts in a manner that merely “apply it” on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), and “receiving” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and 2106.05(g), as well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
The applicant continues, seemingly arguing, (Remarks page 13 paragraph 2), that the amended claims require test operand data be generated such that “a modular multiplication result R’ of the operands A’ and B’ corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval”. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that this is a concrete technological use of the recited computations, rather than merely computing numbers for their own sake. The Examiner respectfully points out that computing numbers for their own sake isn’t something the Examiner has argued/rejected the claims for and that “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology”, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully points out that merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv) does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The applicant continues, stating, (Remarks page 13 paragraph 3), that the specification describes the technical problem solved by the claimed process. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing, (Remarks page 13 paragraph 4), that amended claim 1 recites generating test operand data A” and B” specifically such that the coarse-corrected multiplication result remains within a selected sub-interval around a correction boundary, thereby achieving the technical effects described in the specification. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that the amended claims do not merely recite mathematical operations performed on a generic computer, but instead they generate test data in a way that improves the reliability and verification quality of modular multiplication implementations as described in the specification, and thus integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As referenced above, within the steps the applicant seemingly is referring to above, the only additional elements (under the Alice Framework) is the “multiplier unit”, which is a generic computing device (without a defined structure as to what structure performs the functionality it is described to perform), where the generic computing device (“multiplier unit”) is merely generally linked to the mental process, and mathematical concepts in a manner that merely “apply it” on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), and “receiving” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and 2106.05(g), as well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology”, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), and that merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv) does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 14 paragraph 1), asserting that claims 1-10, 12-22, 24 and 25 are patent eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons referenced above. The applicant continues, stating that claims 11, and 23 have been cancelled. The 101 rejections are withdrawn from claims 11 and 23 due to cancelation of the claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “obtaining, by one or more processors, for the additional pairs of intervals, counter values measuring how often their sub-interval was hit by a test operand data pattern” of claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “generated by a multiplier unit” in claims 13 and 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitation of: “multiplier unit” of claims 13 and 25 invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. Similarly, claims 1 and 7 recite the claim limitation of: “multiplier unit”. However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below for further details as to the lack of structure.
Claims 2-10, 12, 26, and 27 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claims 14-22, and 24 inherit the same deficiency as claim 13 based on dependence.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the claims recite the limitation of: “sub-unit of the multiplier unit”. However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below for further details as to the lack of structure.
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 1-10, 12-22, and 24-27 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the claims recite the limitation of: “multiplier unit”, with the “multiplier unit” of claims 1, 13, and 25 having the functionality of: “an intermediate result generated by a multiplier unit, the intermediate result obtained from a coarse-grained modular correction on a binary multiplication of two operands A, B, wherein the intermediate result is within a range CR partitioned into a plurality of intervals, and wherein the range CR is smaller than P^2, with P being a prime number used as modulus for the modular multiplication”, however, the written description fails to disclose the entire corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function. The written description discloses a partial structure of a “multiplier unit”, see the applicant’s specification [0079], and [0087] regarding a binary adder (as seen in Fig. 2 item 208), and a mod P adder (as seen in Fig. 2 item 212). Furthermore, the applicant’s specification, [0126] describes the fine-grained correction (as seen in Fig. 2 item 210) as a sub-unit of the “multiplier unit”, however, similarly, regarding the fine-grained correction sub-unit, the written description fails to disclose the entire corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire function. Furthermore, the other items besides the adders, (and the fine-grained correction sub-unit) of Fig. 2, such as items 204, and 206 are also written about in terms of what they do, their function, versus what they are, their structure, see the applicant’s specification [0089] regarding a binary product operation, and determining coarse grain correction terms. The applicant’s specification refers to the “multiplier unit” in terms of what it does, its function, versus what it is, its structure, see applicant’s specification, [0007], [0008], [0010], [0014], [0023], [0072]-[0074], [0129], [0140], [0152], [0164], and [0177].
Furthermore, regarding claims 1, 13, and 25. Claim 1 recites the limitation of: “the method comprising: receiving by one or more processors, an intermediate result generated by a multiplier unit”. Claim 13 recites the limitation of: “the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, an intermediate result generated by a multiplier unit”. Claim 25 recites the limitation of: “program instructions comprising: program instructions to receive, by one or more processors, an intermediate result generated by a multiplier unit”. In these limitations, the bounds of the claim unclear, because it is unclear what is being positively recited in the claim. It is unclear if just the receiving of an intermediate result limitation by one or more processors is the limitation that is positively recited, or if both the receiving of an intermediate result and the generation of the intermediate result by a multiplier unit are positively recited as being claimed in the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets both the receiving and the generation of the intermediate result as being positively recited in the claims.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the claims recite the limitations of: “defining a sub-interval around a boundary at which the selected intervals change”. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to be understood as the selected intervals change around a boundary, or if it is meant to be understood as a sub-interval is defined at a boundary, and the selected intervals change, or if it is meant to be understood as there is a boundary at which the selected intervals change within (the boundary), or if it is meant to be understood as the sub-interval is defined based on selected intervals changing around a boundary. The applicant’s specification, [0025], describes a looping method in selection of two intervals. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of intervals changing to be part of a loop function.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the claims 1 and 13 recite the limitations of: “in response to determining, by the one or more processors, that additional test operands are required for the value V, for each additional test operand:”, and claim 25 recites the limitations of: “in response to a determination, by the one or more processors, that additional test operands are required for the value V, determine, for each additional test operand:”. In these claims, “additional test operands”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the claims 1 and 13 recite the limitations of: “in response to determining, by the one or more processors, that additional test operands are required for the value V, for each additional test operand:”, and claim 25 recites the limitations of: “in response to a determination, by the one or more processors, that additional test operands are required for the value V, determine, for each additional test operand:”. In these claims, the limitation of: “additional test operands” implies initial test operands, which the claims do not recite. Furthermore, it is unclear by where the “determining” (of claims 1, and 13), or “determination” (of claim 25), step of determining additional test operands for the value V, occurs regarding these limitations because, earlier in these claims, the claims recite the limitation of: “selecting, by the one or more processors, a value V in the sub-interval” (of claims 1, and 13), and “select, by the one or more processors, a value V in the sub-interval” (of claim 25), without mention of needing test operands in order to select a value V.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the claims 1, and 13 recite the limitations of: “in response to determining, by the one or more processors, that additional test operands are required for the value V, for each additional test operand: determining, by the one or more processors, A' plus varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values as A" values; and determining, by the one or more processors, B" values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval, thereby generating test operand data A" and B".” Claim 25 recites the limitations of: “in response to a determination, by the one or more processors, that additional test operands are required for the value V, determine, for each additional test operand: A’ plus varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values as A” values; and B” values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval, thereby generating test operand data A” and B”.” These claim limitations state that A” and B” are test operand data. It is unclear what is meant by the limitations of “for each additional test operand:” followed by the determining of “A’ plus varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values as A” values” and “B” values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval, thereby generating test operand data A” and B”.” The circular logic of the claim limitations render the bounds of the claim unclear. The claims state that “for each additional test operand” the values of “A”” and “B”” are determined (which are test operand data, “test operand data A” and B””) and that the “B”” values are determined “so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval, thereby generating test operand data A” and B””. The circular logic of, for each additional test operand, test operands are determined so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval in order to generate test operand data “A” and B””, renders the bounds of what is claimed, unclear.
Claims 2-10, 12, 26, and 27 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claims 14-22, and 24 inherit the same deficiency as claim 13 based on dependence.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the claims recite the limitation of: “corresponds to a power-of-two approximation of the prime number P”. The term “approximation” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the claims recite the limitation of: “a sub-unit of the multiplier unit”, with the “sub-unit of the multiplier unit” of the claim having the functionality of: “a correction value X for each intermediate result, thereby building a group of correction values SCV”, “a specification of the sub-unit”, and “determines the correction value X, such that the plurality of intervals are intervals of [min(X), max(X)]”, however, the written description fails to disclose the entire corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function. The applicant’s specification refers to the “sub-unit of the multiplier unit” in terms of what it does, its function, versus what it is, its structure, see applicant’s specification, [0023], [0033], [0126], [0146], and [0158].
Claim 8 inherits the same deficiency as claim 7 based on dependence.
Claim 20 inherits the same deficiency as claim 19 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation of: “wherein additional pairs of intervals from the plurality of intervals are selected in a looping sub-method and a selection sub-method, wherein in each loop of the looping sub- method a next pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals.” It is unclear what is meant by the limitation of: “wherein in each loop of the looping sub- method a next pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals.” It is unclear if it is meant to be understood as, within each loop of the looping sub-method a next pair of intervals is received, or selected or determined. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that in each loop of the looping sub-method a next pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals is selected.
Claim 10 inherits the same deficiency as claim 9 based on dependence.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, the claims recite the limitation of: “obtaining, by the one or more processors, for the additional pairs, of intervals, counter values measuring how often their sub-interval was hit by a test operand data pattern”. The limitation of: “counter values measuring how often their sub-interval was hit by a test operand data pattern” is not positively recited in the claim making the bounds of the claim are unclear. Furthermore, the bounds of the claim are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what structure in the claims performs the claimed function of performing counting as recited the claim: “measuring how often their sub-interval was hit by a test operand data pattern”. The functions do not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the processor in a certain manner.
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 1-10, 12-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including both a mental process and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas:
A method for generating test data for verifying a modular correction of a modular multiplication, the method comprising: an intermediate result generated, the intermediate result obtained from a coarse-grained modular correction on a binary multiplication of two operands A, B, wherein the intermediate result is within a range CR partitioned into a plurality of intervals, and wherein the range CR is smaller than P^2, with P being a prime number used as modulus for the modular multiplication; selecting, a pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals and defining a sub-interval around a boundary at which the selected intervals change; selecting, a value V in the sub-interval; using, a first factorization algorithm for the value V for determining operands A', B', wherein a modular multiplication result R' of the operands A' and B' corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub- interval; and in response to determining, that additional test operands are required for the value V, for each additional test operand: determining, A' plus varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values as A" values; and determining, B" values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub- interval, thereby generating test operand data A" and B".
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements of, “computer-implemented”, “multiplier unit”, and, “one or more processors”, “receiving”. The additional elements, “computer-implemented”, “multiplier unit”, and, “one or more processors” merely recite a generic computer system performing generic computer functions upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and 2106.05(g). For these reasons these additional elements are not integrated into a practical solution.
Under the Step 2B analysis, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: “computer-implemented”, “multiplier unit”, and, “one or more processors”. The mere generally linking to the mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations in a manner that merely “apply it” on a computer regarding limitations “computer-implemented”, “multiplier unit”, and, “one or more processors”, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i), 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional element of “receiving” is well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values are generated randomly or based on a preselected algorithm.
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 2 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 3 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 3 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the first factorization is performed by: determining, n1 as ⌊sqrt(V)⌋; determining, n2 as ⌈sqrt( V - (n1)^2 )⌉; determining, A' as (n1 + n2); and determining, B' as (n1 - n2).
Claim 3 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 3 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 4 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein A and B is each an integer value having a number of bits between 255 to 2^13.
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 4 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 5 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the plurality of intervals comply with [s*P, t*P], the range CR is within the intervals, and wherein s, t are integer values, and wherein the plurality of intervals are intervals [j*P, (j+1)*P] for all integers j in s<j< (t-1).
Claim 5 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 5 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 6 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the plurality of intervals comply with at least one of: determining, a value q such that 2^q corresponds to a power-of-two approximation of the prime number P, wherein the range CR is part of an interval [s*2^q, t*2^q], where s, t, are integer values, and the range CR is partitioned into a plurality of intervals [j*2^q, (j+1)*2^q] for all integers j in s<j< (t-1).
Claim 6 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 6 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 7 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 7 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the plurality of intervals comply with at least one of: a correction value X for each intermediate result, thereby building a group of correction values SCV; and determining, from a specification of the a minimal value min(X) and a maximum value max(X) for which the determines the correction value X, such that the plurality of intervals are intervals of [min(X), max(X)].
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 7 recites the further additional element of, “sub-unit”. This additional element merely recites a part of a generic computer system performing generic computer functions upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(I)(A)(i), 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). For these reasons this additional element is neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7. Claim 8 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 7.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the pair of intervals is a pair of overlapping intervals [min(x1), max(x1)] and [min(x2), max(x2)], and wherein the sub-interval is chosen such that it completely includes an intersection of the intervals [min(x1), max(x1)] and [min(x2), max(x2)].
Claim 8 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 8 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mental process, and mathematical concept:
wherein additional pairs of intervals from the plurality of intervals are selected in a looping sub-method and a selection sub-method, wherein in each loop of the looping sub-method a next pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals.
Claim 9 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 9 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claim 10 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 9.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mental process, and mathematical concept:
wherein the selection sub-method comprises: obtaining, for the additional pairs of intervals, counter values measuring how often their sub-interval was hit by a test operand data pattern; and selecting, using the selection sub-method, the next pair of intervals based on the counter values, by selecting a next interval having a lowest counter value.
Claim 10 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 10 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 12 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 12 recites the following mental process, and mathematical concept:
Wherein the prime number P is selected from at least one of NIST primes, Edwards primes, and generalized Mersenne primes.
Claim 12 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 12 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 26 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 26 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 26 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 26 recites the following mathematical concept:
Wherein the varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values are mathematically smaller than A’.
Claim 26 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 26 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 27 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 27 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 27 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 27 recites the following mathematical concept:
Wherein each of A and B is an integer number with more than 2^13 bits.
Claim 27 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 27 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 13 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 13 recites an abstract idea, including both a mental process and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas:
generating test data for verifying a modular correction of a modular multiplication, comprising: performing a method comprising: an intermediate result generated, the intermediate result obtained from a coarse-grained modular correction on a binary multiplication of two operands A, B, wherein the intermediate result is within a range CR partitioned into a plurality of intervals, and wherein the range CR is smaller than P^2, with P being a prime number used as modulus for the modular multiplication; selecting, a pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals and defining a sub-interval around a boundary at which the selected intervals change; selecting, a value V in the sub-interval; using, a first factorization algorithm for the value V for determining operands A', B', wherein a modular multiplication result R' of the operands A' and B' corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval; and in response to determining, that additional test operands are required for the value V, for each additional test operand: determining, A' plus varying s-values as A" values; and determining, B" values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub- interval, thereby generating test operand data A" and B".
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, analysis, claim 13 recites additional elements of, “computer system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more computer-readable memories”, “one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices”, “program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories”, “receiving”, and “multiplier unit”. The additional elements, “computer system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more computer-readable memories”, “one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices”, “program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories”, and “multiplier unit” merely recite a generic computer system performing generic computer functions upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and 2106.05(g). For these reasons these additional elements are not integrated into a practical solution.
Under the Step 2B analysis, claim 13 recites the additional elements of: “computer system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more computer-readable memories”, “one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices”, “program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories”, “receiving”, and “multiplier unit”. The mere generally linking to the mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations in a manner that merely “apply it” on a computer regarding limitations “computer system”, “one or more processors”, “one or more computer-readable memories”, “one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices”, “program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories”, and “multiplier unit”, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “receiving” is well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 14 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 14 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the varying [Symbol font/0x65]-values are generated randomly or based on a preselected algorithm.
Claim 14 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 14 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 15 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 15 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the first factorization is performed by: determining, n1 as ⌊sqrt(V)⌋; determining, n2 as ⌈sqrt( V - (n1)^2 )⌉; determining, A' as (n1 + n2); and determining, B' as (n1 - n2).
Claim 15 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 15 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 16 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 16 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 16 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein A and B is each an integer value having a number of bits between 255 to 2^13.
Claim 16 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 16 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 17 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 17 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 17 recites the following mathematical concept:
Wherein the plurality of intervals comply with [s*P, t*P], wherein s, t are integer values and wherein the plurality of intervals are intervals [j*P, (j+1)*P] for all integers j in
s
≤
j
≤
(
t
-
1
)
.
Claim 17 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 17 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 18 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 18 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 18 recites the following mathematical concept:
Wherein the plurality of intervals comply with at least one of: determining, a value q such that 2^q corresponds to a power-of-two approximation of the prime number P, wherein the range CR is part of an interval [s*2^q, t*2^q], where s, t, are integer values, and wherein the plurality of intervals are intervals [j*2^q, (j+1)*2^q] for all integers j in
s
≤
j
≤
(
t
-
1
)
.
Claim 18 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 18 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 19 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 19 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 19 recites the following mathematical concept:
Wherein the plurality of intervals comply with at least one of: determining, a correction value X for each intermediate result, thereby building a group of correction values SCV; and determining, from a specification, a minimal value min(X) and a maximum value max(X) for which determines the correction value X, such that the plurality of intervals are intervals of [min(X), max(X)].
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 7 recites the further additional element of, “sub-unit”. This additional element merely recites a part of a generic computer system performing generic computer functions upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(I)(A)(i), 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). For these reasons this additional element is neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 19. Claim 20 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 19.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 20 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 20 recites the following mathematical concept:
wherein the pair of intervals include overlapping intervals [min(x1), max(x1)] and [min(x2), max(x2)], and wherein the sub-interval is chosen such that it completely includes an intersection of the overlapping intervals [min(x1), max(x1)] and [min(x2), max(x2)].
Claim 20 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 20 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 21 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 21 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 21 recites the following mental process, and mathematical concept:
wherein additional pairs of intervals from the plurality of intervals are selected in a looping sub-method and a selection sub-method, wherein in each loop of the looping sub-method a next pair of adjacent intervals is selected from the plurality of intervals.
Claim 21 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 21 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 21. Claim 22 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 21.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 22 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 22 recites the following mental process, and mathematical concept:
wherein the selection sub-method comprises: obtaining, for the additional pairs of intervals, counter values measuring how often their sub-interval was hit by a test operand data pattern; and selecting, using the selection sub-method, the next pair of intervals based on the counter values, by selecting a next interval having a lowest counter value.
Claim 22 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 22 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 24 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 24 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 24 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 24 recites the following mental process, and mathematical concept:
Wherein the prime number P is selected from at least one of NIST primes, Edwards primes, and generalized Mersenne primes.
Claim 24 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 24 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 25, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 25 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 25 recites an abstract idea, including both a mental process and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 25 recites the following mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas:
generating test data for verifying a modular correction of a modular multiplication, comprising: an intermediate result generated, the intermediate result obtained from a coarse-grained modular correction on a binary multiplication of two operands A, B, wherein the intermediate result is within a range CR partitioned into a plurality of intervals, and wherein the range CR is smaller than P^2, with P being a prime number used as modulus for the modular multiplication; a pair of intervals from the plurality of intervals and defining a sub-interval around a boundary at which the selected intervals change, a value V in the sub-interval; a first factorization algorithm for the value V for determining operands A', B', wherein a modular multiplication result R' of the operands A' and B' corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval; in response to a determination, that additional test operands are required for the value V, determine, for each additional test operand: A' plus varying s-values as A" values; and B" values so that the modular multiplication corrected by the coarse-grained modular correction is in the sub-interval, thereby generating test operand data A" and B".
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, analysis, claim 25 recites additional elements of, “computer program product”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions collectively stored on one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions comprising: program instructions to”, “receive”, “one or more processors”, and “multiplier unit”. The additional elements, “computer program product”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions collectively stored on one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions comprising: program instructions to”, “one or more processors”, and “multiplier unit” merely recite a generic computer system performing generic computer functions upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “receive” is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and 2106.05(g). For these reasons these additional elements are not integrated into a practical solution.
Under the Step 2B analysis, claim 25 recites the additional elements of: “computer program product”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions collectively stored on one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions comprising: program instructions to”, “receive”, “one or more processors”, and “multiplier unit”. The mere generally linking to the mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations in a manner that merely “apply it” on a computer regarding limitations “computer program product”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions collectively stored on one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions comprising: program instructions to”, “one or more processors”, and “multiplier unit”, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the additional element of “receive” is well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Deferring of Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner is deferring indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art cited pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 101 rejections made against claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24-27.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Meyer (Patent Application Publication 2021/0243006 A1)
Discusses modular multiplication with correction value applied so that the result falls into a specified interval ([0033]-[0036])
Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1993, Pages 549-579, ISSN 0022-0000
Discusses a technique for producing self-testing/correcting pairs for modular multiplication (Page 551 paragraph 4; Section 3.3; Section 4.4)
Discusses a range-check code, where the self-corrector or self-tester verifies that the result is within a proper range (Definition 2.12)
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 JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:30am – 3:30pm 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 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.
/J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights