DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 6/11/2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Both of Applicant arguments are essentially that that the prior art does not disclose the specific sequence and instead teaches generalized operations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., language which requires the steps to be performed in a specific sequence (before/after/in response to/in order to produce/resulting in/ect.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant additionally argues that the “subtraction operation” in the prior art does not read on the subtraction calculation recited in the claims.
Examiner disagrees because applicant recites the general operation “performing a subtraction calculation between A and B” which maps to performing a subtraction operation as recited in the prior art. However, applicant is arguing the specific operation “(A+B)-(A)=B” which is not claimed.
The dependent claims are not in condition for allowance by virtue of dependance on rejected independent claims.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner is interpreting the electronic devices, the first server and the second server to be parts of a single computing device, see (instant application [Fig. 1]; [0067] Specifically, the first electronic device and the second electronic device… the first server device… a second server device, may be referred to as an arithmetic unit)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
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, 7 and associated dependent claims 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.
The term “error range of an approximation algorithm” in claims 1 and 7 renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the “approximation algorithm” refers to or how “error range” is determined. Additionally, it is not clear how the calculations which specifically result in “the error range being within a specific range“ is performed such that the specific result is necessarily achieved. Dependent claims are also rejected under the same rationale as they do not cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (U.S. 20200036511), in view of alternate embodiments of Cheon (U.S. 20200036511).
Regarding claim 1,
Cheon discloses: A method of processing a homomorphic ciphertext of an electronic apparatus, comprising:
receiving at the electronic apparatus from an external device, a first homomorphic ciphertext corresponding to an approximate message including an error; (Cheon [0015, 0029, 0038-0052] the computing device 200 may receive a homomorphic encrypted message, including an error, from an external device)
receiving at the electronic from a server, apparatus an instruction to perform a calculation on the first homomorphic ciphertext; (Cheon [0015, 0029, 0038-0052] teaches receiving the ciphertext which is being interpreted as an instruction to perform a calculation)
performing, by the electronic apparatus, the calculation on the first homomorphic ciphertext; and (Cheon [0015, 0029, 0038-0052] teaches that the receiving device can perform a calculation on the received ciphertext)
when a proportion of the approximate message in a second homomorphic ciphertext acquired by the calculation exceeds a threshold value extending a plain text space of the second homomorphic ciphertext, and (Cheon [00743-0076. 0096-0100] teaches that performing the bootstrapping before occupying the entire plaintext space according to a threshold (proportion))
transmitting a third homomorphic ciphertext to the server, (Cheon [0015, 0029, 0038-0052] teaches The computing device 200 transmits the operation result encrypted message [0086] teaches that the operation result is the third homomorphic ciphertext)
wherein the extending of the plain text space includes:
generating, by the electronic apparatus a first intermediate homomorphic ciphertext by applying a preset bootstrapping calculation to the second homomorphic ciphertext; (Cheon [0082-0099, Fig. 4] applying a bootstrapping (rebooting) method to generate multiple “intermediate” homomorphic ciphertext)
generating by the electronic apparatus, a second intermediate homomorphic ciphertext by applying the preset bootstrapping , the second intermediate homomorphic ciphertext represents a difference in error change before and after the preset bootstrapping calculation; and (Cheon [0071-0100, Fig. 4] applying a bootstrapping (rebooting) method to generate multiple “intermediate” homomorphic ciphertext)
generating by the electronic apparatus the third homomorphic ciphertext by such that the third homomorphic ciphertext has an error within an error range of an approximation algorithm; and (Cheon [0009–0019, 0046–0048, 0073–0076, 0096–0102, 0111–0113, and 0141–0152 Fig. 4] generating a third homomorphic ciphertext using an operation on the first two and threshold values/ranges according to approximate operations/polynomials)
The primary embodiment of Cheon does discloses performing an operation but does not explicitly disclose that the operation performed can be subtraction, specifically, performing a subtraction calculation and calculation to a subtraction calculation result
However, in alternate embodiments Cheon discloses that the operation can be subtraction: specifically, performing a subtraction calculation and calculation to a subtraction calculation result (Cheon [0096] teaches the operation can include subtraction)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cheon before him or her, to modify the main embodiment of Cheon to include alternate embodiments of Cheon because it allow for subtracting of ciphertexts to be performed.
The motivation for doing so would be [“the operation may be set to basic operation such as multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, and the like, but is not limited thereto.”] (Para. 0096 by Cheon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the embodiments of Cheon to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Similar claim 7 recites limitations substantially similar in scope as claim 1 above, therefore, is also rejected under the same rationale. In addition, Cheon discloses: An arithmetic unit, comprising: a memory configured to store a homomorphic encrypted message received from an electronic device for an approximate message including an error; and a processor configured to perform a calculation on the homomorphic encrypted message (Cheon 0015-0019, 0033. 0056-0058] teaches processor, memory to perform a calculation)
Regarding claims 2 and 8,
Cheon discloses: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the generating of the first intermediate homomorphic ciphertext, (Cheon [0082-0099, Fig. 4] applying a bootstrapping (rebooting) method to generate multiple “intermediate” homomorphic ciphertext) a scaling factor is reflected to have a preset range of the second homomorphic ciphertext, (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0072-0076, 0090-0100] teaches additional information, which can include values such as a scaling factor values and that values can be predetermined) the preset bootstrapping calculation is applied to the second homomorphic ciphertext in which the scaling factor is reflected, and the scaling factor is reflected in a result to which the preset bootstrapping calculation is applied to generate the first intermediate homomorphic ciphertext. (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0072-0076, 0090-0100] teaches performing a bootstrapping (rebooting) calculation/operation to obtain a calculation resulting in an encrypted message and teaches that predetermined values can be used to perform the calculation)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Cheon for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Claim 8, while worded differently discloses the same scope as similar dependent claim 2 and is rejected is a similar manner.
Regarding claims 5 and 11,
Cheon discloses: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the preset bootstrapping calculation includes:
extending a modulus of the homomorphic ciphertext; (Cheon [0011-0019, 0043-0053, 0074-0082, 0087-0095] teaches extension of the modulus of a homomorphically encrypted ciphertext)
linearly transforming the homomorphic ciphertext having the extended modulus into a polynomial form; (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0072-0076, 0090-0100] teaches linear operation can be performed on homomorphically encrypted ciphertexts to produce polynomials)
performing an approximate modulus calculation on the homomorphic ciphertext transformed into the polynomial form using a polynomial equation set so that input values within the preset range approximate an integer point; and (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0068-0076, 0080-0100] teaches approximate modulus calculations on homomorphically encrypted ciphertexts producing a result within the preset range)
linearly transforming a result of calculating the approximate modulus into a form of the homomorphic encrypted message. (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0068-0076, 0080-0100] teaches linear transformation of homomorphically encrypted ciphertexts including the result of the approximation calculation)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Cheon for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Claim 11 is phrased differently but discloses the same scope as similar dependent claim 5 and is rejected is a similar manner.
Regarding claims 6 and 12,
Cheon discloses: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the preset bootstrapping calculation includes:
linearly transforming the homomorphic ciphertext into a polynomial form; (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0072-0076, 0090-0100] teaches linear operation can be performed on homomorphically encrypted ciphertexts to produce polynomials)
extending the modulus of the homomorphic ciphertext linearly transformed into the polynomial form; (Cheon [0011-0019, 0043-0053, 0074-0082, 0087-0095] teaches extension of the modulus of a homomorphically encrypted ciphertext which can be in polynomial form)
performing an approximate modulus calculation on a result of extending the modulus; and (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0068-0076, 0080-0100] teaches approximate modulus calculations on homomorphically encrypted ciphertexts including performing the method on previous results)
linearly transforming the result of calculating the approximate modulus into a form of the homomorphic ciphertext to perform the preset bootstrapping calculation. (Cheon [0013-0019, 0032, 0072-0076, 0090-0100] teaches linear operation can be performed on homomorphically encrypted ciphertexts to including previous results)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Cheon for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Claim 12, while worded differently discloses the same scope as similar dependent claim 6 and is rejected is a similar manner.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (U.S. 20200036511), in view of embodiments of Gentry (U.S. 20130170640).
Regarding claims 3 and 9,
Cheon discloses: The method as claimed in claim 2,
Cheon does not explicitly disclose: wherein the preset range is [-1, 1]. (Gentry [0044-0075, 0088-0092, 0308-0328] Describes using ranges and defines range boundaries which can include the range of [-1, 1]). While the specific variables and formulas applicant recites are not used verbatim, the concept of setting range boundaries using fixed numbers, which can include [-1, 1], is disclosed.
However, in the same field of endeavor Gentry teaches wherein the preset range is [-1, 1].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Cheon for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Cheon and Gentry are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor homomorphic encryption.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cheon and Gentry before him or her, to modify the method of Cheon to include the precise range and number of repartitions of Gentry because it will prevent noise from growing too large.
The motivation for doing so would be [“if the noise becomes too large relative to the modulus, then decryption of the ciphertext may fail and correctness is lost.”] (Para. 0020, 0335 by Gentry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cheon and Gentry to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 9, while worded differently discloses the same scope as similar dependent claim 3 and is rejected is a similar manner.
Regarding claims 4 and 10,
Cheon discloses: The method as claimed in claim 2,
Cheon does not explicitly disclose: wherein the preset range is [-2(k-1)n, 2(k-1)n], where k is the number of repetitions of the extending of the plain text space, and n is precision.
However, in the same field of endeavor Gentry teaches: wherein the preset range is [-2(k-1)n, 2(k-1)n], (Gentry [0044-0075, 0088-0092, 0308-0328, 0333-0362] Describes using ranges and defines range boundaries which can include the range of [-2(k-1)n, 2(k-1)n]). While the specific variables and formulas applicant recites are not used verbatim, the concept of setting range boundaries using fixed numbers, which can include [-2(k-1)n, 2(k-1)n], is disclosed. where k is the number of repetitions of the extending of the plain text space, and n is precision. (Gentry [0061-0069, 0112-0135, 0197-0240] teaches repeating steps a variable number of times to until a specific condition is met such as number of repetitions; [0008-0010; 0197-0240] describe calculating and improving correctness (precision) and include correctness in the preset range for the plaintext space extension)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Cheon for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Cheon and Gentry are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor homomorphic encryption.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cheon and Gentry before him or her, to modify the method of Cheon to include the precise range and number of repartitions of Gentry because it will prevent noise from growing too large.
The motivation for doing so would be [“if the noise becomes too large relative to the modulus, then decryption of the ciphertext may fail and correctness is lost.”] (Para. 0020, 0335 by Gentry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cheon and Gentry to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is phrased differently but discloses the same scope as similar dependent claim 4 and is rejected is a similar manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Gentry 6/18/2019 (US 20200403781) teaches using homomorphic encryption at the bit level.
Joye 2022-2-15 (US 20240048355) teaches determining a set of coefficients for homomorphically multiplying an encrypted value by a scalar.
Tan 2020-02-13 (US 20220100889) teaches a method of determining an order of encrypted inputs, including a first encrypted input and a second encrypted input, using at least one processor, the first encrypted input including a first encrypted data and the second encrypted input including a second encrypted data, each of the first and second encrypted data being encrypted based on a homomorphic encryption scheme.
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 THOMAS A CARNES whose telephone number is (571)272-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. 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.
THOMAS A. CARNES
Examiner
Art Unit 2436
/THOMAS A CARNES/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights