Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/873,220

MANAGEMENT OF ACCURATE SCALES IN FULLY-HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION SCHEMES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 26, 2022
Examiner
SAVENKOV, VADIM
Art Unit
2432
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
193 granted / 312 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
363
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 312 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The 7/7/2025 IDS document has been considered by the examiner. It is noted that the “Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning With Fully Homomorphic Encryption for Deep Neural Network” NPL has been split up into multiple documents in the image file wrapper. Response to Amendment / Arguments Regarding objections to minor informalities: Applicant’s amendment has overcome the objections. As such, the objections have been withdrawn. Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (“Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning With Fully Homomorphic Encryption for Deep Neural Network”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Approximate Homomorphic Encryption with Reduced Approximation Error”) in view of Lee (“Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning With Fully Homomorphic Encryption for Deep Neural Network” [Applicant’s IDS]). Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses: A computer-implemented method for controlling scale values in fully-homomorphic encryption schemes (i.e., CKKS as in Kim), the method comprising: obtaining a series of prime numbers of a modulus chain of a fully-homomorphic encryption scheme; Refer to at least paragraph 3 on page 2, bullet 2 on page 4, and to the last paragraph on page 4 of Kim with respect to selecting a chain of primes q1,q2,…,qn. As per the cited portions of Kim, a software library such as HEAAN is used for obtaining the series of primes. Note: Applicant’s disclose teaches the same library in [0054] of the instant specification. initializing a ciphertext scale at a highest level of the modulus chain to a value that ensures ciphertext scales of levels lower than the highest level of the modulus chain are within a range of a highest prime number and a lowest prime number of the modulus chain; Refer to at least the second paragraph on page 3, bullet 2 on page 4, the table on page 17, and pages 18-20 of Kim with respect to choosing the primes to avoid divergence of scaling factors. calculating all ciphertext scales below the highest level of the modulus chain based on the initialized ciphertext scale for the highest level of the modulus chain; Refer to at least pages 17 and 19-20 of Kim, the scaling factors for each level are calculated based on the highest level downward. performing computations using the fully-homomorphic encryption scheme; Refer to at least section 2.1 of Kim with respect to computations performed by CKKS. rescaling one or more ciphertext levels below the highest level of the modulus chain according to one or more of the calculated ciphertext scales during the performance of the computations by the fully-homomorphic encryption scheme; and Refer to at least pages 8 and 9 of Kim with respect to CKKS rescaling; pages 17 -18 and 20-22 of Kim with respect to the modified rescaling. encrypting of a plaintext into a ciphertext at a particular level of the modulus chain, wherein the ciphertext is associated with a respective scale of that particular level of the modulus chain. Refer to at least the introduction, section 2.1, “Using a Different Scaling Factor for each Level” on page 17, and “Handling the Operations between Ciphertexts at Different Levels for Reduced-Error CKKS” on page 22 of Kim with respect to encrypting ciphertexts at particular levels of the modulus chain. Kim concerns the encryption algorithm itself, and does not specify: the computer-implemented method further comprising using a neural network; performing computations further comprising the computations prescribed by various neural network layers of the neural network. However, Kim in view of Lee discloses: the computer-implemented method further comprising using a neural network; performing computations further comprising the computations prescribed by various neural network layers of the neural network. Refer to at least the abstract, Algorithms 3-4, Algorithms 6-8, and the conclusion of Lee with respect to applying a CKKS scheme to a standard neural network to implement privacy preserving machine learning. As per the cited algorithms, Lee performs computations prescribed by various layers of the neural network using the CKKS scheme. The teachings of Kim and Lee both concern homomorphic encryption, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kim to further implement the homomorphic encryption algorithm as part of protecting a neural network because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (e.g., the abstract and introduction of Lee concerning the need for privacy preserving machine learning utilizing FHE). Regarding claims 4-5, they are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., citations concerning the software libraries such as HEANN, SEAL, and so forth). Regarding claim 6, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., the citations to Lee and the obviousness rationale). Regarding claim 7, Kim-Lee discloses: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein an output of the computations performed by the fully-homomorphic encryption scheme is an inference of a neural network. Refer to at least the abstract and introduction of Kim with respect to using CKKS for implementing practical performance in machine learning applications. Regarding independent claim 8, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected. Regarding claims 11-14, they are substantially similar to claims 4-7 above, and are therefore likewise rejected. Regarding independent claim 15, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected. Regarding claims 18-20, they are substantially similar to claims 4-7 above, and are therefore likewise rejected. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (pending resolution of minor informalities noted above). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM. 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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. /V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432 /ALI SHAYANFAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 19, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 19, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 30, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602484
DOCKER IMAGE VULNERABILITY INSPECTION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING DOCKER FILE ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585783
Graph-Based Approach Towards Hardware Trojan Vulnerability Analysis
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587520
PERSONALISED, SERVER-SPECIFIC AUTHENTICATION MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566872
DEVICE, METHOD, AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR ACCESSING AN APPLICATION IN A LOCKED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12500778
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE CERTIFICATES FOR COMPONENTS OF A NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+20.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month