CTNF 18/375,476 CTNF 81026 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. The office acknowledges the following papers: IDS filed on 11/14/2023, Oath filed on 3/25/2024. Priority The effective filing date for the subject matter defined in the pending claims in this application is 3/22/2023. Drawings The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 9/30/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without either reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1, 10, and 14 recite a mental process of an encryption operation that comprises a reduction operation including a single Galois territory multiplication 64-bit operation. All of the claims are directed towards a process, machine manufacture, or a composition of matter. The single Galois territory multiplication 64-bit operation of the reduction operation of the cryptographic operation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process of the mind with the aid of pen and paper for performing mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. circuitry, interfaces, DMA, CPU, accelerator, etc.). Additionally, dependent claims 2, 4-6, 11, 13, and 15-16 only add further abstractions that can be performed as a mental process of the mind with the aid of pen and paper (e.g. folding operation, bit-reflected operands, four Galois territory multiplications, SIMD) but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. e.g. circuitry, interfaces, DMA, CPU, accelerator, etc.). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “circuitry” to perform the “reduction operation including a single Galois territory multiplication 64-bit operation” steps. The “reduction operation including a single Galois territory multiplication 64-bit operation” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, this additional element doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it doesn’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, including encrypted communication (claim 3), network interface (claim 7), etc. Thus, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and aren’t patent eligible. Conclusion The following is text cited from 37 CFR 1.111(c): In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Mueller et al. (U.S. 2024/0053963), taught a carryless multiplier circuit. Gueron et al. (U.S. 8,340,280), taught SIMD instructions to speed up GCM computations. Gribok et al. (U.S. 2023/0239136), taught pipelined GCM hashing. Gopal (U.S. 2022/0309190), taught Galois field multiplication. Chen et al. (U.S. 2018/0365021), taught a configurable arithmetic unit. Gueron et al. (U.S. 2010/0020965), taught Galois field multiplication. Stein et al. (U.S. 2004/0078409), taught a compact Galois field multiplier engine . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A. PETRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5988. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on (571) 270-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JACOB PETRANEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/375,476 Page 2 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/375,476 Page 3 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/375,476 Page 4 Art Unit: 2183
Prosecution Insights