DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 5-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner is interpreting the electronic devices, the first server and the second server to be as 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The previous 112 rejections has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first server" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extension" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for claim 1.
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 on the electronic apparatus a first homomorphic ciphertext corresponding to an approximate message including an error an external device; (Cheon [0015, 0029, 0038-0052] the computing device 200 may receive a homomorphic encrypted message, including an error, from an external device)
receiving on the electronic apparatus an instruction from a server 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 first server 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 acquired by the extension 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 second homomorphic ciphertext and the first intermediate homomorphic ciphertext; and (Cheon [0082-0099, Fig. 4] applying a bootstrapping (rebooting) method to generate multiple “intermediate” homomorphic ciphertext)
generating by the electronic apparatus the third homomorphic ciphertext by homomorphic ciphertext on the first intermediate homomorphic ciphertext; and (Cheon [0082-0099, Fig. 4] generating a third homomorphic ciphertext using an operation on the first two)
sending the new homomorphic encrypted message to the second server for decryption (Cheon [0092] teaches the third device 100-3 decrypts the operation result encrypted message to obtain an approximate message m6; [Fig. 5-100-3] teaches that the result encrypted message is transmitted to this device)
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 additionally 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. (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.
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