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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2022, 03/09/2023 and 10/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements mentioned above are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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 claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “generating, by the at least one processor, a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data;”. Claims 4-6 also reference “real number data”, but it is unclear if the real number data is meant to be a singular value, a vector of values or a matrix of values. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the real number data to be a vector of data.
Claims 7, 12-15, 16, and 20 have similar issues regarding “real number data”, with it being unclear if the limitation in these claims meant to be understood as the real number data is a singular value, a vector of values, or a matrix of values. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the real number data in these claims to mean a vector of data.
Claims 2-6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claims 8-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 7 based on dependence.
Claims 13-15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 12 based on dependence.
Claims 17-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 16 based on dependence.
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 19, claim 3 recites the limitation of: “moves a value of a sphere surface on a surface of a sphere.” It is unclear how a sphere surface could be moved on a surface of a sphere if the surface being moved is the same as the surface it is moved upon. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves values which are located on a surface of a sphere to new locations on the surface of the sphere.
Claims 8-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 7 based on dependence.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 16 claim 7 recites the limitation of: “calculating a vector comprising a plurality of elements by reflecting the real number data to a helper matrix”, similarly, claim 15 recites the limitation of: “calculates a vector comprising a plurality of elements by reflecting the new real number data to the helper matrix”, and similarly, claim 16 recites the limitation of: “calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements by reflecting the first real number data to the helper matrix”. In these claim limitations, it is unclear what is meant by “reflecting” real number data to a helper matrix.
Claims 8-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 7 based on dependence.
Claims 17-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 16 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation of: “performing error correction comprises approximating an element value”. The term “approximating” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximating” 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.
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 1-20 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 USC 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 a mental processes and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mental processes and mathematical calculations:
“A data processing method comprising: selecting, as a codeword, a vector from among a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising multiple elements and having a predetermined size; generating, a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data; and outputting, the helper matrix.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 1 recites additional element of, “processor”. The recited processor is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the recited processor is merely a generic computing device performing generic functions, see MPEP 2106.05(A)(ii). For these reasons, claim 1 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting 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 mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, a mental process. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mental process:
“wherein a predetermined number of elements of the multiple elements of the vector in the predetermined size have a same value other than zero, wherein the vector includes 512 elements, and wherein 16 elements of the 512 elements have a value of ±1/4.”
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 3 merely further limits the mental process and 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 2 recites the following mental process and mathematical formula:
“wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value of a sphere surface on a surface of a sphere”
Claim 3 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 merely further limits the mental process and 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 formula, and mathematical calculation:
“wherein the generating the helper matrix comprises: selecting a random orthogonal matrix for moving the real number data in a random direction; calculating a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the real number data; and calculating the helper matrix by using the real number data, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.”
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 5 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 4. 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 calculation:
“wherein the calculating the rotation matrix comprises: calculating first intermediate data by matrix- multiplying the random orthogonal matrix by the real number data; generating second intermediate data by performing unit orthogonalization processing on the codeword and the first intermediate data; calculating a rotation angle between the codeword and the first intermediate data; and generating the rotation matrix by using the rotation angle, the first intermediate data, and the second intermediate data.”
Claim 5 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 6 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mental process. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mental process of observation:
“wherein the real number data is at least one of face information data, voice information data, or location information data.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 6 recites additional elements of, “face information data, voice information data, or location information data”. These additional element are merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv).
For these reasons, claim 6 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 7 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
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 calculations:
“receiving real number data; and calculating a vector comprising a plurality of elements by reflecting the real number data to a helper matrix that relatively moves a value of a sphere surface on a surface of a sphere.”
Claim 7 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 7 recites additional element of, “receiving real number data”. The recited “receiving real number data” is merely insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the recited additional element of “receiving real number data” is well understood, routine, and conventional activity see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, claim 7 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting 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 relationship:
“determining equality of the vector and a codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix.”
Claim 8 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 9 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 8. Claim 9 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 8. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mathematical relationship and mathematical calculations:
“wherein the determining the equality comprises: calculating a dot product sum of the vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and determining the equality based on whether a size of the dot product sum is smaller than a predetermined size.”
Claim 9 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7. Claim 10 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 7. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mathematical calculations:
“further comprising: performing error correction on the vector.”
Claim 10 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 11 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 11 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 10. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 11 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“wherein the performing error correction comprises approximating an element value of each of the plurality of elements of the vector to a predetermined value or a zero value.”
Claim 11 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding claim 12, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 12 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 recites an abstract idea, including a mental processes and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 12 recites the following mental processes and mathematical calculations:
“selects, as a codeword, a vector of a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size, generates a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data, and outputs the helper matrix.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 12 recites additional elements of, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction”. The recited processor and memory is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the recited memory is simply storing instructions for the mathematical concept, and is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). The recited memory and processor is merely a generic computing device performing generic functions, see MPEP 2106.05(A)(ii).
For these reasons, claim 12 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Claim 13 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 12. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 13 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following mathematical formula, and mathematical calculation:
“by executing the at least one instruction: selects a random orthogonal matrix for moving the real number data in a random direction, calculates a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the real number data, and generates the helper matrix by using the real number data, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.”
Claim 13 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 14 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 14 merely further limits the mental process and 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 calculation:
“by executing the at least one instruction: calculates first intermediate data by matrix multiplying the random orthogonal matrix by the real number data, generates second intermediate data by performing unit orthogonalization processing on the codeword and the first intermediate data, calculates a rotation angle between the codeword and the first intermediate data, and calculates the rotation matrix by using the rotation angle, the first intermediate data, and the second intermediate data.”
Claim 14 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 15 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Claim 15 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 12. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 15 recites the following mental process and mathematical formula:
“by executing the at least one instruction, based on new real number data being input, calculates a vector comprising a plurality of elements by reflecting the new real number data to the helper matrix.”
Claim 15 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding claim 16, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 16 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 16 recites an abstract idea, including a mental processes and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 16 recites the following mental processes and mathematical calculations:
“generates first real number data based on the biometric information, select, as a codeword, a first vector of a plurality of vectors, the first vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size; generate a helper matrix by using the codeword and second real number data; receive the first real number data from the electronic apparatus; calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements by reflecting the first real number data to the helper matrix; and determine equality of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 16 recites additional elements of, “system comprising an electronic apparatus”, “server”, “sensor that senses biometric information”, “communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server”, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction”. The recited processor is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The recited memory is simply storing instructions for the mathematical concept, and is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). The recited memory, processor, system, electronic apparatus, and server is merely a generic computing device performing generic functions, see MPEP 2106.05(A)(ii). The additional element of “communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server”, is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The additional element, “sensor that senses biometric information” this additional element is merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv)
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 16. Claim 17 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16. 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 relationship and mathematical calculations:
“wherein the determining the equality comprises: calculating a dot product sum of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and determining the equality based on whether a size of the dot product sum is smaller than a predetermined value.”
Claim 17 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 18 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 18 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 18 recites an abstract idea, including a mental process. Specifically, claim 18 recites the following mental process of observation:
“wherein the biometric information is at least one of face information or voice information.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 18 recites additional elements of, “face information data, voice information data, or location information data”. These additional element are merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv).
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 16. Claim 19 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 19 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 19 recites the following mental process and mathematical formula:
“wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value of a sphere surface on a surface of a sphere”
Claim 19 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 20 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 20 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16. 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 formula, and mathematical calculation:
“generates the helper matrix by at least: selecting a random orthogonal matrix for moving the second real number data in a random direction; calculating a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the second real number data; and calculating the helper matrix by using the second real number data, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.”
Claim 20 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herder, III et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0141920 A1), hereinafter, “Herder”.
With regards to claim 1, Herder teaches:
A data processing method (Fig. 3; Fig. 5);
comprising: selecting, by at least one processor as a codeword, a vector from among a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising multiple elements and having a predetermined size; ([0068] regarding a processor for mathematical operations; [0096] regarding, as part of a mathematical (linear algebra) operation, selecting a vector of a secret number, S, (as a codeword) as one vector out of a plurality of vectors (with another vector being biometric data vector B), with a size of M rows and 1 column, which correlate to binary matrix A NxM (rows));
generating, by the at least one processor, a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data; and outputting, by the at least one processor, the helper matrix. ([0068] regarding a processor for mathematical operations; [0096] regarding, as part of a mathematical (linear algebra) operation, calculating public key, K, by multiplying binary matrix, A, by secret number, (vector S as a codeword), and adding biometric data, B, (as real number data); Fig. 3 regarding items 36 (key generation), 37 (Biometric public key)).
With regards to claim 6, Herder teaches the data processing method of claim 1, as referenced above. Herder further teaches:
wherein the real number data is at least one of face information data, voice information data, or location information data. ([0096] regarding biometric data, B; [0048] regarding examples of biometric data, including voice print).
With regards to claim 12, Herder teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising: (Fig. 3);
a memory that stores at least one instruction; ([0022] regarding computer readable storage medium (as memory) storing instructions);
and a processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction, ([0022] regarding computer readable storage medium (as memory) storing instructions the when executed by the processor, establish the process for generating the biometric public key);
wherein the processor, by executing the at least one instruction, selects, as a codeword, a vector of a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size, ([0022] regarding computer readable storage medium (as memory) storing instructions the when executed by the processor, establish the process for generating the biometric public key; [0068] regarding a processor for mathematical operations; [0096] regarding, as part of a mathematical (linear algebra) operation, selecting a vector of a secret number, S, (as a codeword) as one vector out of a plurality of vectors (with another vector being biometric data vector B), with a size of M rows and 1 column, which correlate to binary matrix A NxM (rows));
generates a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data, and outputs the helper matrix. ([0068] regarding a processor for mathematical operations; [0096] regarding, as part of a mathematical (linear algebra) operation, calculating public key, K, by multiplying binary matrix, A, by secret number, (vector S as a codeword), and adding biometric data, B, (as real number data)).
Deferring of Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Due to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, regarding the unclear limitations involving “reflecting”, the Examiner is deferring indication of allowable subject matter over prior art pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 112(b) rejections made, for claims 7-11, 15, and 16-20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the applicant claims a data processing method of generating a helper matrix, wherein the method of claim 1 comprises:
“A data processing method comprising: selecting, by at least one processor as a codeword, a vector from among a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising multiple elements and having a predetermined size; generating, by the at least one processor, a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data; and outputting, by the at least one processor, the helper matrix.”
Furthermore, wherein the data processing method of claim 2 comprises:
“The data processing method of claim 1, wherein a predetermined number of elements of the multiple elements of the vector in the predetermined size have a same value other than zero, wherein the vector includes 512 elements, and wherein 16 elements of the 512 elements have a value of ±1/4.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
With regards to claim 3, the applicant claims a data processing method of generating a helper matrix, wherein the method of claim 1 comprises:
“A data processing method comprising: selecting, by at least one processor as a codeword, a vector from among a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising multiple elements and having a predetermined size; generating, by the at least one processor, a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data; and outputting, by the at least one processor, the helper matrix.”
Furthermore, wherein the data processing method of claim 3 comprises:
“The data processing method of claim 1, wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value of a sphere surface on a surface of a sphere.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
With regards to claim 4-5, the applicant claims a data processing method of generating a helper matrix, wherein the method of claim 1 comprises:
“A data processing method comprising: selecting, by at least one processor as a codeword, a vector from among a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising multiple elements and having a predetermined size; generating, by the at least one processor, a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data; and outputting, by the at least one processor, the helper matrix.”
Furthermore, wherein the data processing method of claim 4 comprises:
“The data processing method of claim 1, wherein the generating the helper matrix comprises: selecting a random orthogonal matrix for moving the real number data in a random direction; calculating a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the real number data; and calculating the helper matrix by using the real number data, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
With regards to claim 13-14, the applicant claims a data processing method of generating a helper matrix, wherein the method of claim 12 comprises:
“An electronic apparatus comprising: a memory that stores at least one instruction; and a processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction, wherein the processor, by executing the at least one instruction, selects, as a codeword, a vector of a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size, generates a helper matrix by using the codeword and real number data, and outputs the helper matrix.”
Furthermore, wherein the data processing method of claim 13 comprises:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 12, wherein the processor, by executing the at least one instruction: selects a random orthogonal matrix for moving the real number data in a random direction, calculates a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the real number data, and generates the helper matrix by using the real number data, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Herder discloses generating a public key (helper matrix) by using biometric data, a binary matrix, and a vector secret number (as a codeword), (fig. 3, fig, 5, [0096]). However, Herder fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Huh et al. (U.S. Patent application publication 2018/0375859 A1), hereinafter, “Huh”, discloses use of biometric data, and vector-matrix multiplication to generate a matrix, T, (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0049]-[0054]). However, Herder fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Singh, (Singh, K. J., & Gagneja, K. (2018). Public key cryptography using sphere and spheroid. International Journal of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems, 21(3), 363. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcnds.2018.094461), hereinafter, “Singh”, discloses use of a sphere or spheroid in encrypting data related to public keys. However, Singh fails to teach or suggest matrix multiplication, as well as the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Conclusion
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 ET - 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