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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 8/10/2026. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. Claims 16-32 are newly added. Claims 16-32 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 15 of Remarks, Applicant contends that “… has made amendments to reflect on the independent claims … concrete procedures of noise control …”, “… that reflecting the concrete procedures on the independent claims can solve specific technical problems improving efficiency of computer resources by avoiding the explosion of borderline bugs and performing operation using the entire circle group at high speed in the fully homomorphic encryption (TFHE)”, and “The amended processes enables operation of an arbitrary univariate function in FHE, effectively, i.e., at high-speed using the entire circle group without waste, whether the range of numbers is in the circle group is divided (partitioned) into an odd number of regions or an even number of regions”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the technical improvements asserted by Applicant above are not readily identifiable within any of independent claims 16, 31, and 32, and thus cannot be read into the claims. Further, even though Applicant’s Disclosure may provide discussion about said technical improvements, Applicant is reminded that the features upon which Applicant relies 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). Thus, because there’s neither the specific limitations argued within claims 16, 31, and 32, nor a clear nexus between the claimed subject matter of these claims and the pertinent sections of the Disclosure, the examiner maintains that newly presented claims 16-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as below.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 20, 22, 25, 31, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 12 recites “the divided region used as one plaintext symbol” which should be changed to --the divided region of numbers used as the one plaintext symbol--.
Claim 16, line 22 recites “the second ciphertext obtained” which should be changed to --the second ciphertext is obtained--.
Claim 16, page 2, line 4 recites “in the case an argument is non-negative” which should be changed to --in a case where an argument is non-negative--.
Claim 16, page 2, lines 8-9 recite “in the case an argument is non-negative” which should be changed to --in a case where an argument is non-negative--.
Claim 17, line 3 recites “in the case an odd function” which should be changed to --in the case the odd function--.
Claim 17, line 4 recites “further executes” which should be changed to --further executing--. Line 8 also recites “further executes” which should be changed to --further executing--.
Claim 18, line 6 recites “a plus side” and “a minus side” which should be changed to --a plus-side-- and --a minus-side--. Page 2, lines 5 and 11 each further recite “plus side” and “minus side” which should be changed to --plus-side-- and --minus-side--.
Claim 18, lines 3 and 4 recite “in a case an odd function” and “in the case an even function” which should be changed to --in the case of the odd function-- and --in the case of the even function--.
Claim 18, page 2, line 3 recites “in the case an argument is non-negative” which should be changed to --in the case the argument is non-negative--.
Claim 18, page 2, lines 1, 3, 6, and 9 respectively recite “in the case an odd function”, in the case an argument”, “in the case an even function”, and “in the case an argument” which should be changed too --in the case the odd function--, --in the case the argument--, --in the case the even function--, and --in the case the argument--.
Claim 20, line 5 recites “including” which should be changed to --including:--.
Claim 22, lines 11 and 14 recite “the range” which should be changed to --a range--.
Claim 22, line 16 recites “an arbitrary univariate function” which should be --the arbitrary univariate function--.
Claims 25 and 26 each recite “including” at line 2 which should be changed to --including:--.
Claims 31 and 32 each correspond to claim 16, and also include the same objectionable issues as noted for claim 16 above. Thus, claims 31 and 32 require similar correction to claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-32 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 16, lines 6-7 recite “and utilizing an entirety of a range of numbers …”, however the phase “and utilizing” is indefinite because it’s unclear as to what limitation in the preamble is performing the function of “utilizing”.
Claim 16, line 16 recites “to each of the plaintext symbols” which lacks proper antecedent basis because there’s no prior recitation of “plaintext symbols”.
Claim 16, line 17 recites “the predetermined coefficient” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16, lines 20-21 recite “and storing the second ciphertext in the storage device” which appears to be a redundant limitation in view of the earlier recited “and storing the second ciphertext in the storage device”. If Applicant intends for this to not be a redundant limitation, then it’s respectfully requested that Applicant modify these limitations in a manner where they would be considered definite.
Claim 17, line 2 recites “when dividing the entirety of the range of numbers”, however “the entirety” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17, line 9 recites “a ciphertext” however claim 16 already introduces “a ciphertext” for both respective arbitrary univariate functions, and thus it’s unclear if claim 17’s “a ciphertext” is intended to further refer to the “a ciphertext” recited in claim 16.
Claim 17, line 9 further recites “a trivial ciphertext”, however the term “trivial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18, line 2 recites “when dividing the entirety of the range of numbers”, however “the entirety” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18, page 2, lines 7-8 recite a trivial ciphertext”, however the term “trivial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 22, page 2, line 11 recites “the circle group” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 23 and 24 each recite “a dividing number of the range”, however “the range” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 31 and 32 each correspond to claim 16, and also include the same indefinite issues as noted for claim 16 above. Thus, claims 31 and 32 require similar corrections to claim 16 in order to overcome this rejection.
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 16-32 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 16, 31, and 32 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 16-32 recite any additional elements which would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, claim 16 recites an “encryption processing apparatus … comprising a processor and a storage device …”, claim 31 recites an “encryption processing method … executed by a processor…”, and claim 32 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 16, 31, and 32, 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 17-30 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 17-30 are also rejected for the same reasons applied to respective claim 16 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).
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
Prosecution Insights