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 Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 3/16/2026 Claims 1-5 and 9-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 10-14 of Remarks, Applicant contends that “… the claims are not directed to an abstract idea…”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant argues that “The present invention relates to an Integer wise TFHE scheme that utilizes the entire circle group to operate an arbitrary univariate function”, however such language is not included in any of the claims. The examiner notes that Applicant continues to formally summarize the invention further on pages 11-12. 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). The examiner respectfully recommends Applicant formally amend each of the independent claims to recite some/all of the summarized functionality in order to expedite prosecution.
Second, Applicant refers to Examples 3 and 41 of the USPTO’s Guideline for Patent Eligibility in order to demonstrate how the present amendments overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, Applicant appears to cite to Example 3 as supporting Applicant’s assertion that the present invention’s “efficient and fast calculation of a univariate function” which “resolves the bottleneck of the conventional TFHE operation and accelerates calculation” as an improvement of computer functionality, however these limitations are not recited within any of the claims, and thus any arguments referencing these limitations are considered moot. Regarding Example 41, the examiner acknowledges Applicant’s reading that this example is directed towards “protection of communication” via encryption, however Applicant’s claims do appear to communicate data in the same manner as Example 41 (i.e., between computer terminals). Thus, the examiner is not persuaded that either Example 3 or Example 41 provide the necessary framework to suggest that Applicant’s claims are not directed towards an abstract idea integrated within a practical application and/or reciting significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, because Applicant amended at least each of the independent claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will be modified below to account for these amendments. Thus, any further arguments presented concerning the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are considered moot in view of the updated rejection below.
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 3 and 4 are 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 3 recites notational element “t” and claim 4 recites notational elements “k”, “n”, “l”, “id”, “ads”, “f”, which are presently undefined and thus indefinite. The examiner recommends formally defining each notational element via a “wherein” clause (e.g., “wherein t is an integer value”) in order to properly clarify these claim elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “using the divided region of numbers …” (mental process - mathematical operation), “rotating coefficients of a first polynomial…” (mental process - mathematical calculation), and “rotating coefficients of a second polynomial…” (mental process - mathematical calculation). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 14, and 15 fail to recite any further language which integrates the above “using” or “rotating” steps in a manner which imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea itself. For example, there’s no further recitation(s) of an improvement to a computerized function, nor an improvement to a technology or technical field. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of claims 1-15 recite any additional elements which would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, claim 1 recites an “encryption processing apparatus … comprising a processor and a storage device …”, claim 14 recites an “encryption processing method … executed by a processor…”, and claim 15 recites a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein an encryption processing program …”, which are equivalent to typical elements/components used for storing (or retrieving) information in memory, and thus are recognized as being well-understood, conventional, and routine computer functions (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The examiner also takes Official Notice regarding the claimed “encryption processing apparatus … comprising a processor and a storage device …”, “encryption processing method … executed by a processor…”, and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein an encryption processing program …” as being well-known and conventional in the computer arts. Thus, the above identified abstract idea recited within claims 1, 14, and 15, when considered individually or in combination with the above additional elements/components, fails to recite subject matter which would constitute as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, dependent claims 2-13 also fail to recite any further limitations which could be considered non-abstract or which further integrate the above abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 2-13 are also rejected for the same reasons applied to respective claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Sehrawat” (US 11522672).
“Cheon” (US 2024/0235809).
“Honorio Araujo da Silva” (US 2022/00385448).
“Paillier” (US 2023/0188318).
“Laine” (US 10749665).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491