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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 30-49 are pending and rejected; Claims 1-29 are canceled; Claims 30, 40 and 47 are independent claims.
Reopening Prosecution
The PTAB has reversed the Examiner in a decision received 12/22/2025.
Prosecution is reopened in order to address a 101 rejection of the pending claims.
TC Director has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/James Kramer/James Kramer Group Director TC2400
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 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Step 1: Do the claims fall within a statutory category i.e. a process, manufacture, machine, or composition of matter?
Claim 30 recites “A method to perform a cryptographic operation, the method comprising:”
at least one step or act, including receiving, identifying, modifying, and computing steps. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
Claim 40 recites “A processing device, comprising: one or more registers to store:” Thus, the claim is directed to a manufacture or a machine which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 47 recites “A system comprising: a processing device, and a memory operatively coupled to the processing device and storing instructions that cause the processing device to perform a cryptographic operation:” Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea, law of nature, natural phenomenon?
Claims 30, 40 and 47 recite:
“identifying an input into a Boolean operation, wherein the input comprises a first masked input number and a second masked input number; “which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion. “a Boolean operation, wherein the input comprises a first masked input number and a second masked input number” which is mathematical concept.
“modifying, using a masking value, the first masked input number to obtain a first modified masked input number;” which is mathematical concept.
“modifying, using the masking value, the second masked input number to obtain a second modified masked input number;” which is mathematical concept.
“computing a first intermediate value comprising a multiplication product of the first modified masked input number with the second modified masked input number;” which is mathematical concept.
“computing an output of the Boolean operation using the first intermediate value and a value that is based on an inverse masking value;” which is mathematical concept.
Therefore, the recited claim limitations recite judicial exceptions and are considered together as abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Step 2A, Prong Two: do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
Claim 30 recites: a method to perform a cryptographic operation comprising steps (identifying, modifying, computing) using a processing device. Claim 40 recites a processing device comprising one or more registers to store inputs, and one or more processing units to modify, compute …. Claim 47 recites a processing device, and a memory operatively coupled to the processing device and storing instructions that cause the processing device to perform a cryptographic operation. However, the recited additional elements “processing device”, “registers”, “processing units” and “memory” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are just presenting a field of use (MPEP§2106.05(h)), and only generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Further, the limitations recite processors, registers and memory devices at a high level of generality. The processor, register and memory devices are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements include generic components and operations: “processing device,” “registers,” “processing units,” “memory storing instructions performing cryptographic operations using public-private key pair and digital signatures”.
• Under Berkheimer, whether elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) must be supported. Here:
The specification itself describes the computer system 800 as conventional general-purpose computing hardware (spec ¶¶ [55]–[59]), and presents the modules as functional blocks implemented in hardware/software or combinations (spec ¶¶ [19], [21], [23]–[27], [53]). This is evidence that the claimed hardware environment is conventional.
Use of registers and processing units to store and process numeric values is conventional.
Executing arithmetic operations such as multiplication, modular reduction, inversion, and Boolean operations on data within a processor are routine computational steps.
Implementing cryptographic operations (AES, DES, signatures, symmetric/public-private) on a processor is conventional subject matter and not, by itself, an unconventional arrangement.
• No non-conventional or non-generic arrangement is recited that would amount to “significantly more” than the abstract mathematical concept. The claims lack any asserted technical improvement to computer functionality recited as part of the claim, and do not claim a specialized hardware architecture or protocol that changes the processor’s operation in an unconventional manner.
• Therefore, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, are WURC under Berkheimer and do not supply an inventive concept.
Claims 30, 40, and 47 are directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts: modular arithmetic, inversion, multiplication, sign mapping for Boolean operations) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional generic computing components and operations. As such, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claim 31 recites “The method of claim 30, wherein the Boolean operation comprises an AND operation.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of claim 31, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 32 recites “the method of claim 30, wherein the output of the Boolean operation comprises one of: the masking value, or a negative of the masking value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of claim 32, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 33 recite “The method of claim 30, wherein the first masked input number represents a first input number and the second masked input number represents a second input number, and wherein each of the first masked input number and the second masked input number comprises:
the masking value taken with a first sign, provided that a corresponding input number has value 0, or the masking value taken with a second sign, provided that the corresponding input number has value 1.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of claim 33, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 34 recite “The method of claim 30, wherein the masking value is randomly generated modulo a modulus number.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of claim 34, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 35 recite “The method of claim 34, wherein the modulus number is a prime number.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of claim 35, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 36 recite “The method of claim 30, wherein the value that is based on the inverse masking value comprises an inverse of twice the masking value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 37 recite “The method of claim 30, wherein computing the output of the Boolean operation further comprises:
computing a second intermediate value comprising a multiplication product of the first intermediate value with (i) the inverse masking value and (ii) an inverse of two modulo a modulus number; and
modifying the second intermediate value using one of: adding the masking value to the second intermediate value, or subtracting the masking value from the second intermediate value.”
These limitations are a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 38 recite “The method of claim 30, further comprising:
computing an output of the cryptographic operation using the output of the Boolean operation.”
However, the recitation of “computing an output of the cryptographic operation using the output of the Boolean operation” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are just presenting a field of use, and only generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (“cryptographic operation”) and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claim 39 recited “The method of claim 38, wherein the cryptographic operation comprises one or more of:
a digital signature algorithm, a symmetric key cryptographic operation, or a public-private key cryptographic operation.”
However, the recitation of “a digital signature algorithm, a symmetric key cryptographic operation, or a public-private key cryptographic operation.” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are just presenting a field of use, and only generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (“digital signature algorithm,” “symmetric key cryptographic operation,” or “public-private key cryptographic operation”) and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claim 41 recite “The processing device of claim 40, wherein the Boolean operation comprises an AND operation.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 42, recite “The processing device of claim 40, wherein the output of the Boolean operation comprises one of: the masking value, or a negative of the masking value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 43 recite “The processing device of claim 40, wherein each of the first masked input number and the second masked input number comprises:
the masking value taken with a first sign, provided that a corresponding input number has value 0, or the masking value taken with a second sign, provided that the corresponding input number has value 1.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 44 recite “The processing device of claim 40, wherein the masking value is randomly generated modulo a modulus number, and wherein the modulus number is a prime number.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 45 recite “The processing device of claim 40, wherein the value that is based on the inverse masking value comprises an inverse of twice the masking value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 46 recite “The processing device of claim 40, wherein to compute the output of the Boolean operation, the one or more processing units are further to:
compute a second intermediate value comprising a multiplication product of the first intermediate value with (i) the inverse masking value and (ii) an inverse of two modulo a modulus number; and
modify the second intermediate value using one of:
addition of the masking value to the second intermediate value, or subtraction of the masking value from the second intermediate value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 48 recite “The system of claim 47, wherein the Boolean operation comprises an AND operation, and wherein the output of the Boolean operation comprises one of:
the masking value, or a negative of the masking value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim 49, recite “The system of claim 47, wherein computing the output of the Boolean operation comprises:
computing a second intermediate value comprising a multiplication product of the first intermediate value with (i) the masking value and (ii) an inverse of two modulo a modulus number; and
modifying the second intermediate value using one of:
adding the masking value to the second intermediate value, or subtracting the masking value from the second intermediate value.”
This limitation is a further limitation that recites a mathematical concept. As a result, additional features of the claim, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEGA WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Cathy Thiaw can be reached at 5712701138. 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.
NEGA . WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/N.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 2/24/2026