DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits is in reply to the application filed on 12/24/2025.
Claims 1, 7 are amended
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 are previously cancelled
Overall, Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to application KR10-2023-0015970, filed on 02/07/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 3, 5 are directed to a system, claims 7, 9, 11 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1, (which is representative of Claim 7) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] A blockchain-based electronic voting device with a zero-knowledge proof, comprising:
[B] a communication interface configured to communicates with a voter terminal carried by each of voters to perform an electronic vote, wherein the voter terminal performs an electronic vote by accessing the blockchain electronic voting device via a communication network; and
[C] a controller configured to issue one real voting key and at least one fake voting key to the voter terminal,
[D] perform verifiable encryption an electronic vote performed with the real voting key and an electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key such that cipher texts thereof are indistinguishable from each other,
[E] verify voting eligibility of each of the voters by performing the zero-knowledge proof using zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk- SNARK) on the electronic votes submitted from the voter terminal,
[F] decrypt the electronic vote performed with the real voting key to a non-zero value,
[G] decrypt the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key to 0, and automatically exclude the electronic vote with a decrypted result value of 0 from a voting result, and
[H] add the voting result to a ballot box implemented as a public blockchain when the electronic vote is proven to be a valid vote through the zero-knowledge proof,
[I] wherein in issuing the voting keys, only one real voting key may be issued. but a plurality of fake voting keys may be issued, and in the case of voting with the fake voting key, the blockchain electronic voting device may verify the corresponding voting behavior based on the zero-knowledge proof, so as to treat the voting result as an invalid vote so that the voting result would not be reflected in a tally,
[J] wherein a verifier can verify proof of voting by performing the zero-knowledge proof using a public input/output,
[K] and wherein the voters may track their votes by attaching the key or other unique identifier to each ballot and use the key or other unique identifier to check whether their votes are reflected in the ballot box in order for the voters to obtain end-to-end verifiability of the votes.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) recites: communicating with the voters to perform votes ([B]); issuing keys ([C], [I]); performing encryption ([D]); verifying voting eligibility ([E], [J]); decrypt the vote ([F]-[G]); adding voting result ([H]); and tracking the vote ([K]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at a system for voting authentication.
This overall combination, covers including social activities because the claim language recites performing vote, verifying voting eligibility and authenticating votes. MPEP recites “An example of a claim reciting social activities is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The applicant’s specification in paragraph 0008, line 10, recites “the present invention provide blockchain based electronic voting system” The one of skill in the art can determine, the invention is related to voting using the blockchain environment. Additionally, the recited limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “blockchain,” “electronic,” “device,” “zero-knowledge proof,” “interface,” “terminal,” “controller,” and “zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk- SNARK),” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of authenticating votes. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: blockchain ([A]-[B], [H]-[I]), electronic ([A]-[B], [D]-[I]), device ([A]-[B]), zero-knowledge proof ([A], [D], [H]-[J]), interface ([B]), terminal ([B]-[C], [E]), controller ([C]), “zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk- SNARK) ([E]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the additional elements of claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[J]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of authenticating votes could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 7 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 3, 5, 9, 11 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 3, (which is representative of claim 9), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] The blockchain-based electronic voting device of wherein the controller is configured to assign different secret values to the electronic vote performed with the real voting key and the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key, and track whether the electronic vote performed with the real voting key and the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key are reflected in the voting result through the secret values.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating votes. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5, (which is representative of claim 11), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] The blockchain-based electronic voting device of wherein, the controller is configured to deliver the voting result to the voter terminal.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating votes. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and wherein the voters may track their votes by attaching the key or other unique identifier to each ballot and use the key or other unique identifier to check whether their votes are reflected in the ballot box in order for the voters to obtain end-to-end verifiability of the votes.” Claim 1 does not recite which (i.e., real or fake) voting keys is attached to the vote to allow the voters to track their votes. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume that the key that is being attached is the real voting key for examination purposes.
Claim 7 recites similar limitation to claim 1 and thus is rejected for the same reason.
The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 (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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 20210304544 A1), in view of Krizenecky (US 11038675 B2), in further view of Sealy (US 20240265762 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7. Oh discloses:
A blockchain-based electronic voting device with a zero- knowledge proof, comprising: [see at least (0009) an electronic voting method using additional homogeneous cryptography and a block chain.]
a communication interface configured to communicate with a voter terminal carried by each of voters to perform electronic votes; and wherein the voter terminal platforms an electronic vote accessing the blockchain electronic voting device via a communication network; [see at least (0035) it is assumed that the voter terminals 110 and the administrator terminal 120 are connected to each other via a block chain network, and this will be mainly described. Therefore, in the following description, a block chain node should be interpreted as referring to the voter terminal 110 and the administrator terminal 120 included in the block chain network. (0043) the voter terminal 110 is a device possessed by the voter, and may be an electronic device equipped with a communication function such as, for example, a computer, a notebook computer, and a mobile communication terminal.]
…verify voting eligibility of each of the voters by performing the zero-knowledge proof using zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge (zk- SNARK) on the electronic votes submitted from the voter terminal [see at least Fig. 1, (0032) FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of an electronic voting system according to an embodiment of the present invention. Homogeneous cryptography according to an embodiment of the present invention is a verifiable encryption with many useful functions. Here, the useful functions may be zk-SNARK connectivity, additional homogeneity, rerandomization possibility, and verifiable decryption. (0034) an electronic voting system according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a plurality of voter terminals 110 and an administrator terminal 120. (0052) the zero-knowledge proof is used to prove affiliation to prove that the voter is a legitimate voter included in the list of voters, and may be used to prove that the voting message is within a legitimate range (for example, in the case of a presidential election, only 1 candidate has 1 vote)]
… add the voting result to a ballot box implemented as a public blockchain when the electronic vote is proven to be a valid vote through zero-knowledge proof … [see at least (0039) Watchers (observers) need to be able to verify whether to be voted by a legitimate voter. (0040) Voters need to be able to verify whether their votes are included in the results (0041) The watcher (observer) needs to be able to verify whether the results are accurately counted from the total vote. (0042) In order to satisfy the above-described attributes, in an embodiment of the present invention, homogeneous cryptography specialized for a block chain and a zero-knowledge proof has been applied. (0052) the zero-knowledge proof is used to prove affiliation to prove that the voter is a legitimate voter included in the list of voters, and may be used to prove that the voting message is within a legitimate range (for example, in the case of a presidential election, only 1 candidate has 1 vote).]
the blockchain electronic voting device may verify the corresponding voting behavior based on the zero-knowledge proof, so as to treat the voting result as an invalid vote so that the voting result would not be reflected in a tally, [see at least (0038) Coercion-resistance: Voters need to be able to vote as they intended, despite appearing to be cooperating with a coercer. This means receipt-freeness and ballot-secrecy, which encapsulates the privacy of the entire vote. (0039) Eligibility verifiability: Watchers (observers) need to be able to verify whether to be voted by a legitimate voter. (0040) Individual verifiability: Voters need to be able to verify whether their votes are included in the results. (0042) In order to satisfy the above-described attributes, in an embodiment of the present invention, homogeneous cryptography specialized for a block chain and a zero-knowledge proof has been applied.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that in order to verify votes (i.e., verify whether the vote is performed using real or fake voting keys), it would use the zero-knowledge proof. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
wherein a verifier can verify proof of voting by performing the zero-knowledge proof using a public input/output, [see at least (0052) the zero-knowledge proof is used to prove affiliation to prove that the voter is a legitimate voter included in the list of voters, and may be used to prove that the voting message is within a legitimate range (for example, in the case of a presidential election, only 1 candidate has 1 vote).]
and wherein the voters may track their votes by attaching the key or other unique identifier to each ballot and use the key or other unique identifier to check whether their votes are reflected in the ballot box in order for the voters to obtain end-to-end verifiability of the votes. [see at least (0010) an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided an electronic voting method including the steps of: (a) generating a serial number sn (i.e., unique identifier) by using election identification information eid and a his/her secret key, wherein the election identification information eid is shared through a block chain; (0045) The ballot may include a serial number sn (i.e., unique identifier) generated by the voter terminal 110. Here, sn (i.e., unique identifier) may be used to confirm duplicate voting without revealing the identity of the voter.]
Oh discloses authenticating voting using zero-knowledge proof. However, Oh does not disclose:
a controller configured to issue one real voting key and at least one fake voting key to the voter terminal,
perform verifiable encryption on an electronic vote performed with the real voting key and an electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key such that they are indistinguishable from each other,
decrypt the electronic vote performed with the real voting key to a non-zero value, decrypt the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key to 0, and
automatically exclude an electronic vote with a decrypted result value of 0 from a voting result, and
wherein in issuing the voting keys, only one real voting key may be issued, but a plurality of fake voting keys may be issued, and in the case of voting with the fake voting key,
Nonetheless, Krizenecky discloses:
a controller configured to issue one real voting key and at least one fake voting key to the voter terminal, [see at least (3/32-34) Coercion resistance is provided for using a mechanism of providing a voter with two PIN codes, one that is used to cast a valid vote and one that is used to cast a fake vote.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that the two pin codes disclosed by the Krizenecky reference are used to cast real and fake votes. Similarly to applicant’s fake and real voting keys which are used to cast real and fake votes. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
encrypt an electronic vote performed with the real voting key and an electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key such that they are indistinguishable from each other, [see at least (3/29-38) In the Meister system, the registration authority stores an election-specific template on the ECC which is an attempt to guard against randomization and forced abstention attacks. Coercion resistance is provided for using a mechanism of providing a voter with two PIN codes, one that is used to cast a valid vote and one that is used to cast a fake vote. As long as the voter knows which is which and a coercer does not, the voter can use the fake vote PIN to cast an invalid vote and yet be able to cast a valid vote when the coercer cannot influence the voter. (14/15-18) Step 922: The election attribute provider server 903 encrypts the vote, for example using a shared secret known by the election attribute provider server 903 and the eVote server 907.]
wherein in issuing the voting keys, only one real voting key may be issued, but a plurality of fake voting keys may be issued, and in the case of voting with the fake voting key, [see at least (3/32-34) Coercion resistance is provided for using a mechanism of providing a voter with two PIN codes, one that is used to cast a valid vote and one that is used to cast a fake vote.]
Note: The above combination of Oh, Krizenecky does not expressly disclose a plurality of fake voting keys may be issued. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Oh to include the features of Krizenecky. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to perform electronic voting using the voting technique taught by Oh and using the coercion resistance technique as taught by Krizenecky to securely perform electronic vote. Oh discloses performing electronic vote. Krizenecky teaches encrypting electronic vote with specific pin. Because both Oh as well as Krizenecky are implemented through field of performing and validating vote and both references addresses performing vote as taught by Oh with the corrosion-resistance technique as taught by Krizenecky to securely calculate the result of vote. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Oh as well as Krizenecky would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Oh/Krizenecky.
The combination of Oh in view of Krizenecky discloses performing electronic vote. However, the above combination of Oh, Krizenecky does not disclose:
decrypt the electronic vote performed with the real voting key to a non-zero value, decrypt the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key to 0, and exclude an electronic vote with a decrypted result value of 0 from a voting result,
However, Sealy discloses:
decrypt the electronic vote performed with the real voting key to a non-zero value, decrypt the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key to 0, and exclude an electronic vote with a decrypted result value of 0 from a voting result, [see at least (0073) The blockchain application examines the issue ballot transaction and, if valid, modifies the application state to record the voter public key and the registrar public key that issued the vote. The application state is also modified to update the number of votes issued by the registrar so as to prevent the registrar from issuing more votes than for which it is authorized. If the issue ballot transaction is invalid, it is discarded and the application state is not modified. (reads on: keeping the vote if it is valid and discarding if it invalid)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Oh, Krizenecky to include the features of Sealy. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to accurately count the number of votes using the voting technique taught by Oh, Krizenecky and using the decryption technique as taught by Sealy to securely perform electronic vote. Oh, Krizenecky discloses blockchain based voting system. Sealy teaches decrypting voting data and include or exclude the count based on the decryption. Because both Oh, Krizenecky as Sealy well as are implemented through field of performing and validating vote and both references addresses performing vote as taught by Oh, Krizenecky with the decryption technique as taught by Sealy to accurately calculate the result of vote. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Oh, Krizenecky as well as Sealy would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Oh, Krizenecky /Sealy.
Regarding Claims 3, 9. Oh, Krizenecky, Sealy discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Oh further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to assign different secret values to the electronic vote performed with the real voting key and the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key, and [see at least (0010) an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided an electronic voting method including the steps of: (a) generating a serial number sn (i.e., secret value) by using election identification information eid and a his/her secret key, wherein the election identification information eid is shared through a block chain; (0045) The ballot may include a serial number sn (i.e., secret values) generated by the voter terminal 110. Here, sn (i.e., secret values) may be used to confirm duplicate voting without revealing the identity of the voter.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. The applicant’s specification [0020] lines 21-22 “assigning a secret value provided by the voter terminal as a unique number of the electronic vote during the electronic voting process.” One of ordinary skill in the art would infer that the unique identifier as recited in claims 1, 7 is the secret values that is assign to the electronic vote. Additionally, the generated serial number as disclosed by the Oh reference reads on the secret values that is assigned to the electronic votes. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
Note: The above combination of Oh, Krizenecky, Sealy does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to assign different secret values to … electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
track whether the electronic vote performed with the real voting key and the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key are reflected in the voting result through the secret values. [see at least [0020] The voter terminal may further include a voting verification unit configured to confirm whether the voting of the voter is included by verifying the ciphertext CT′ and zero-knowledge proof key π′ published on the block chain by using the generated serial number sn.]
Regarding Claims 5, 11. Oh, Ferenczi discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Oh further discloses:
wherein, the controller is configured to deliver the voting result to the voter terminal. [see at least [0015] generating a voting result Msum, and transmitting the generated voting result to each voter terminal (reads on: delivering the voting result to the terminal)]
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Applicant amends independent claims 1 and 7 to add descriptions of the use of private/public keys in a blockchain electronic voting device, in which only one real voting key and one or more fake voting keys are issued, with the blockchain electronic voting device verifying voting behavior based on the zero-knowledge proof, and a verifier can verify proof of voting by performing the zero-knowledge proof using a public input/output. The claims further specify using the key or other unique identifier to check whether one's vote is reflected in the ballot box in order for the voters to obtain end-to-end verifiability of the votes. This implementation of blockchain verification precludes the performance of the verification by human activity. The amended claims further recite "perform verifiable encryption" and "automatically exclude" the electronic vote with a decrypted result value of 0. The term "automatically" emphasizes that the exclusion of invalid votes is performed by the system based on the decryption result, but without human judgment. Such automatic determination by the system cannot be characterized as a mental process that can be performed by humans.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. The applicant’s independent claims 1, 7 recites performing votes in a blockchain environment, and additional elements such as electronic, zero-knowledge serves as tools to perform the abstract idea. See the updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", Federal Register, v. 84, no. 4 (January 7, 2019), page 50, and which follows the Berkheimer reasoning. This memo describes that, "A claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." id. at 53, end of section II. In the present case, Applicant's use of the blockchain verification presents more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. "... in issuing the voting keys ... in the case of voting with the fake voting key, the blockchain electronic voting device may verify the corresponding voting behavior based on the zero-knowledge proof, so as to treat the voting result as an invalid vote so that the voting result would not be reflected in a tally ... a verifier can verify proof of voting by performing the zero-knowledge proof using a public input/output, and ... the voters may track their votes by attaching the key or other unique identifier to each ballot ... to check whether their votes are reflected in the ballot box in order for the voters to obtain end-to- end verifiability of the votes." (Applicant's claims 1 and 7.) No preemption of "abstract idea" by the claim when taken as a whole The claims do not pre-empt the practice of the asserted abstract idea. The cited examples of the abstract idea show that there are other ways to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, under Alice, the claims recite statutory eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly, Applicant's claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 present "an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field may render a claim patent eligible at step one of the Alice/Mayo test even if it recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon", as required under 35 U.S.C. §101. (Federal Register, v. 84, no. 4, at page 50, beginning of section II.) Therefore claims 1-4 and 17-19 set forth statutory subject matter. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC§101 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Applicant's claimed subject matter The instant subject matter is directed to a blockchain-based voter verification system that permits authentication of votes and also allows verification of the casting of ballots so that voters to obtain end-to-end verifiability of the votes. Response to the rejections Oh '544 is acknowledged as not describing issuance of one real voting key and at least one fake voting key to the voter terminal. Ferenczi is alleged to show generating keys; however, there is no indication of issuance of fake keys. Instead, the generation of new keys is described as generating new keys at a desired interval: [0042] ... In various embodiments, issuer system 130 may publish the keys by transmitting the keys to merchants and users ... In various embodiments, issuer system 130 may generate new keys at any desired interval to increase the security of the keys during the zero-knowledge proof payment process (e.g., weekly, monthly, etc.)." (Ferenczi at [0042].) Oh '544 and Ferenczi are acknowledged as not disclosing the use of Applicant's fake encryption keys. Krizenecky is cited as disclosing the use of fake voting PINs, but is specifically not a blockchain-based voting system. Instead, Krizenecky merely describes the use of a fake PIN in a machine with dedicated cryptographic processing capabilities. Finally, the combination of Oh '544, Ferenczi, and Krizenecky is acknowledged as failing to show modification of the application state to record the voter public key and the registrar public key, and to update the number of votes issued by the registrar so as to prevent the registrar from issuing more votes than for which it is authorized. Sealy is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of including and excluding vote based on certain condition in the same or similar context. As indicated supra, the combination of Oh '544, Ferenczi, and Krizenecky fails to show a blockchain voter validation system in which fake keys or identifiers are used to flag unauthorized votes. Sealy is cited as showing preventing issuance of more votes than authorized, but fails to suggest Applicant's configuration. Furthermore, the combination of Oh '544, Ferenczi, Krizenecky and Sealy fails to show or suggest Applicant's configuration that provides verification proof of voting by performing the zero-knowledge proof using a public input/output: "... issuing, by a controller through a communication interface, one real voting key and at least one fake voting key to a voter terminal carried by each of voters to perform electronic votes ... verifying, by the controller, voting eligibility of each of the voters by performing zero-knowledge proof using zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge ... on electronic votes submitted from the voter terminal: and decrypting ... the electronic vote performed with the real voting key to a non-zero value, decrypting the electronic vote performed with each of the at least one fake voting key to 0, and automatically excluding an electronic vote with a decrypted result value of 0 ... and adding the voting result to a ballot box implemented as a public blockchain when the electronic vote is proven to be a valid vote through the zero-knowledge proof ... the blockchain electronic voting device may verify the corresponding voting behavior based on the zero-knowledge proof, so as to treat the voting result as an invalid vote ... wherein a verifier can verify proof of voting by performing the zero-knowledge proof using a public input/output, and wherein the voters may track their votes by attaching the key or other unique identifier to each ballot, and use the key or other unique identifier to check whether their votes are reflected in the ballot box in order for the voters to obtain end-to- end verifiability of the votes." (Applicant's claim 1; claim 7 similar.) In Krizenecky, the aggregator can distinguish between real and fake votes internally using election-specific templates. In contrast, as claimed by Applicant, the structure is such that "no one can distinguish" whether the voting key is real or fake, as described in paragraph [0049] of Applicant's specification. This represents a fundamental technical difference in the security model. Thus the Examiner's assertion fails to meet the KSR test because the use of blockchain for voter authentication and to allow tracking of the placement of a vote are not a mere design steps (not "a design step well within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art"). This is more than a superficial difference; it is a basic function of Applicant's operability. The cited prior art combination therefore fails to show or suggest Applicant's claimed subject matter as set forth in claims 1 and 7. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness and thus Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection. Claims 3, 5, 9 and 11 depend from claim 1 or 7 and are allowable for at least the same reasons.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended claim language and not original set of claims. Furthermore, the combination of Oh, Krizenecky, Sealy discloses the claim limitations of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. Furthermore, the applicant’s argues each references separately, however, the combination of Oh, Krizenecky, Sealy discloses the claim limitations. Additionally, the Krizenecky reference discloses 2 PINs and the voter is aware which PIN to user to cast real or fake vote. The Oh reference discloses on [0010] generating serial number which is reads on the unique identifier. See the updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140089062 A1 Chen; Lihao VOTING SYSTEMS AND VOTING METHODS BASED ON SMART MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICES - The invention provides a voting system based on smart mobile communication devices. It comprises at least one smart mobile communication device, at least one server device, a client module, and a server module. The client module is installed on the smart mobile communication device and it is used for temporarily saving the voter's information, submitting identity verification request, showing voting inquiries, and submitting votes. The server module is installed on the server device and it is used for storing the voter's information, verifying the voter's registration and identity, issuing and verifying the voting certificate, creating and publishing the voting affair, and calculating and publishing the voting contents statistics. The client module and the server module perform digital communications through a mobile communication network. The invention also provides a voting method based on smart mobile communication device. According to this invention, voting can be safe, convenient and fast.
US 20200402073 A1 TANG; Shaohua et al. VERIFIABLE POST-QUANTUM ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM AND IMPLEMENTATION METHOD THEREFOR - A verifiable post-quantum electronic voting system and an implementation method includes an authentication center, a user end, a verification server, a vote counting server, a verification program, and a bulletin board. The authentication center verifies the identity of a user, generates an identity ID for each valid user, and signs it; the user end proves its identity to the authentication center, receives an identity ID signature, encrypts a ballot, and sends a ballot ciphertext and the identity ID signature to the verification server; and the verification server, which comprises two servers, completes the verification of the validity of the ballot and homomorphic vote counting. The vote counting server decrypts partially homomorphic vote counting ciphertext and issues it on the bulletin board, and the verification program verifies whether the vote counting server has correctly counted the ballots.
US 20130227009 A1 Padmanaban; Sai Sudhir Anantha et al. ARBITRATION OF DISK OWNERSHIP IN A STORAGE POOL - The present invention extends to methods, systems, and computer program products for implementing persistent reservation techniques for establishing ownership of one or more physical disks. These persistent reservation techniques can be employed to determine ownership of physical disks in a storage pool as well as in any other storage configuration. Using the persistent reservation techniques of the present invention, when a network partition occurs, a defender of a physical disk does not remove a challenger's registration key until the defender receives notification that the challenger is no longer in the defender's partition. In this way, pending I/O from applications executing on the challenger will not fail due to the challenger's key being removed until the proper ownership of the physical disk can be resolved.
US 20080000969 A1 Salomonsen; Gorm et al. Electronic Voting Systems - An electronic voting system, including: a voting device to generate, in response to a voter selection for each of a plurality of voters an encrypted electronic ballot and a printed ballot, both having voter selection data indicating a said voter's choice, said electronic ballot including information to link it to said printed ballot and vice-versa; an electronic vote decryption system configured to decrypt said encrypted electronic ballots including said linking information; and a voting verification system to receive decrypted voter selection data and linking information from said vote decryption system, to receive voter selection data and linking information from said printed ballots and to compare voters' choices for a sample of said printed and electronic ballots linked by said linking information, to verify the voting.
US 20220189232 A1 Zbeda; Oren et al. TAMPER RESISTANT PUBLIC LEDGER VOTING SYSTEM - There is disclosed an electronic voting system for tamper resistant voting. In some embodiments of a system and/or method for allows a voter to verify that his vote was recorded properly and/or allows public counting of votes by any entity. For example, the system may record information on a distributed ledger that prevents changing of votes. For example, enough data may be available to each voter to check that his vote was recorded properly and/or to substantiate and/or prove if it was not recorded properly. For example, public data may be recorded anonymously such that a third party may be able to access the number of votes, but not the identify of individual voters. Optionally, the individual voter may be supplied a way to substantiate a claim that he voted for either party of the election.
US 20200193425 A1 FERENCZI; ANDRAS L. et al. ZERO-KNOWLEDGE PROOF PAYMENTS USING BLOCKCHAIN - A zero-knowledge proof purchase system and process using blockchain is disclosed. The system may comprise a customer device, a merchant system, an issuer system, and a blockchain network having a zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) smart contract. The system may implement a zero-knowledge proof algorithm having a key generator function, a proof function, and a validate function. Each function may be configured to perform various tasks in the system to support and enable zero-knowledge proof purchases.
US 20220247573 A1 LI; Maocai et al. DIGITAL SIGNATURE GENERATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMPUTER DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM - This application relates to a digital signature generation method and apparatus, a computer device, and a storage medium. The method includes: obtaining a message, and calculating a message hash value of the message; obtaining a signature private key, stitching the signature private key and the message hash value to obtain stitched information, calculating a hash value corresponding to the stitched information, and generating a digital signature corresponding to the message by using the hash value corresponding to the stitched information, the message hash value, and the signature private key. That is, generating a digital signature corresponding to a message by using a hash value corresponding to stitched information, a message hash value of the message, and a signature private key can improve security of the generated digital signature. This application can improve security in a blockchain consensus process.
US 12190645 B2 Davis; Steven C. Method and system for public elections on a moderated blockchain - A method for processing votes in a public blockchain includes: generating an election reference and candidate references; generating an asymmetric cryptographic key pair comprised of a master private key and master public key; generating a registration block for addition to a blockchain including the election reference, candidate references, and master public key; transmitting the registration block to nodes associated with the blockchain; receiving a plurality of voting messages, each including a vote and the election reference, where the vote includes a voter reference and at least one candidate reference; generating one or more voting blocks for addition to the blockchain including the received votes; and transmitting each generated voting block to nodes associated with the blockchain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights