CTNF 17/814,448 CTNF 81329 DETAILED ACTION 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/23/2026. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 2-21, 23, 29 and 35 have been canceled. Claims 1, 22, 27-28 and 33-34 have been amended. Claims 1, 22, 24-28, 30-34 and 36-38 are pending for consideration. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Regarding to the 101 rejection of claims 1, 22, 24-28, 30-34 and 36-38, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive as the claims integrate alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn. Regarding to the 112(a) rejection, the claims have been amended. However, the amendment does not resolve the issues recited in the previous office action. Regarding pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant does not provide specific evidence that supports the lack written description for the limitation “wherein the side-channel protection is increased or lowered to the one or more security levels based on one or more use-case scenarios or operating conditions … corresponding to one or more modes of the security mode”. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 22, 24-28, 30-34 and 36-38 have been considered but are moot. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1, 22, 24-28, 30-34 and 36-38 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. Regarding claims 1, 27 and 33, the claims recite “ wherein the side-channel protection is increased or lowered to the one or more security levels based on one or more use-case scenarios or operating conditions… corresponding to one or more modes of the security mode ”. The claims lack sufficient written description to show the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in the claim, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp. , 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and MPEP 2161.01 (I). Applicant’s specification does not describe an algorithm/steps/flows that perform the function “ wherein the side-channel protection is increased or lowered to the one or more security levels based on one or more use-case scenarios or operating conditions … corresponding to one or more modes of the security mode ” in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. For example, paragraph 0063 of the applicant’s specification discloses “a configurable hardware module may be implemented that can increase or decrease the level of side-channel protection based on the security needs associated with different use cases”. Claims 22, 24-26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 36-38 are dependent claims depended on claims 1, 27 and 33 respectively. The claims 22, 24-26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 36-38 are rejected for the same reasons as that of independent claims 1, 27 and 33, respectively. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1, 22, 24-28, 30-34 and 36-38 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 independent claims 1, 27 and 33, the claims are rejected for lack of sufficient written description . According to MPEP 2161.01 (I), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 must be made in addition to the written description rejection. According to MPEP 2173, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that a patent application 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. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability and whether the specification meets the criteria of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph with respect to the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim must be rejected under 112(b) because it does not comply with written description requirement under 35 U.S.C 112(a). Regarding independent claims 1, 27 and 33 , these claims recite the limitation “a first security level of the one or more security levels relates to operating in a first mode of the security mode in response to a detection of a computing environment in which side-channel protection is not required, wherein the side-channel protection is increased or lowered to the one or more security levels based on one or more use-case scenarios or operating conditions”. The highlighted portion of the limitation is unclear. If the side-channel protection is not required then logically there is no need to increase or lower the one or more security levels. However, according to the claims, the side-channel protection is increased and lowered after the detection of the computing environment in which side-channel protection is not required. Clarification is required. These claims further recite the limitation “wherein the side-channel protection is increased or lowered to the one or more security levels based on one or more use-case scenarios or operating conditions ”. It is unclear if the operating conditions are associated with the one or more user-case scenarios or the one or more security levels and how the operating conditions are linked with the control signal. According to the Applicant’s spec, the control signal is determined by specific process and/or operating conditions (see paragraphs 0068-0069). Clarification is required. Claims 22, 24-26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 36-38 are dependent claims depended on claims 1, 27 and 33 respectively. The claims 22, 24-26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 36-38 are rejected for the same reasons as that of independent claims 1, 27 and 33, respectively. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-01 Claims 1, 22, 24-28, 30-34 and 36-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No art has been identified which reads on the claimed limitations “perform a polynomial multiplication operation using a first input associated with a first input node such that the polynomial multiplication operation is performed in a security mode based on a second input including a control signal associated with a second input node, wherein the security mode to facilitate the polynomial multiplication operation at one or more security levels such that a first security level of the one or more security levels relates to operating in a first mode of the security mode in response to a detection of a computing environment in which side-channel protection is not required, wherein the side-channel protection is increased or lowered to the one or more security levels based on one or more use-case scenarios or operating conditions including one or more of a secure computing environment, a key generation or encryption operation, or a decryption or inverse number theoretic transform operation corresponding to one or more modes of the security mode” . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 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, Lynn D Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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. /TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431 Application/Control Number: 17/814,448 Page 2 Art Unit: 2431 Application/Control Number: 17/814,448 Page 3 Art Unit: 2431
Prosecution Insights