DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claims 1-10 have been examined in this application.
The information disclosure statement filed on November 21, 2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims contain various acronyms without first introducing what the acronyms stand for. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a commitment unit, configured to perform…,” “ a blinding unit, configured to blind…,” “a signature unit, configured to sign…,” and “a voting unit, configured to establish…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claims 1-10, the claims recite the use of a ESDSA to obtain a signature tuple. The Specification fails to disclose what an ESDSA is and how to carry out the limitation using the ESDSA. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously know to utilize a Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate and verify digital signatures. However, the claims do not recite that the ECDSA algorithm is utilized. For at least these reasons, the claims and all dependent claims are rejected.
Per claim 8, the claim recites the following limitations, “a commitment unit, configured to perform…,” “ a blinding unit, configured to blind…,” “a signature unit, configured to sign…,” and “a voting unit, configured to establish…,” which invoke 112(f). The Specification was reviewed, mainly Figures 3-6 and related text, yet no structure was found to be linked to each of the units claimed. A broad processor, processor 31, is recited as being capable of performing functions on a device; however, this is not sufficient to provide support for adequate structure for the limitations at issue. As a result, the claim is rejected.
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 limitation “a commitment unit, configured to perform…,” “ a blinding unit, configured to blind…,” “a signature unit, configured to sign…,” and “a voting unit, configured to establish…” in claim 8 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure recited in the Specification does not perform the entire functions in the claim nor is it linked to any of the units claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Per claim 10, the claim recites “a storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the program…” The Specification does not disclose that the storage medium is not a signal medium or a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The definition of the computer readable storage medium is an open-ended list in that it does not explicitly exclude signals per se. A computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus or device. The USPTO recognizes that when claims are directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, the claims must be rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-10 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of registering a vote and storing the vote securely without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, formula or equations, and calculations. The claims clearly recite the use of mathematical equations to output a vote and store the vote.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A trusted anonymous voting method based on a blockchain, comprising:
performing a hash operation on original voting content to obtain a hash output, wherein the hash output comprises a commitment value Cvi;
blinding the commitment value Cvi based on information of other voters to obtain a commitment value tuple {(c)} and a commitment value tuple {(x)};
signing the commitment value tuple {(c)} by using an ESDSA to obtain a signature tuple {tilde over (s)}; and
establishing a vote tuple ({(c)}, {(s)}, { (d)}) based on the commitment value tuple { (c)}, the signature tuple { (s)} and a signature tuple { (d)} of other voters, and uploading the vote tuple ({ (c)}, { (s)}, { (d)}) and the commitment value tuple { (x)} to the blockchain, wherein the vote tuple ({ (c)}, {(s)}, {(d)}) serves as voting content in a voting stage,
wherein the signature tuple {(d)} is generated in a case that other voters verify the signature tuple {(s)} and the signature tuple {(s)} passes the verification, and the commitment value tuple {(x)} is used to decrypt the vote tuple.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: blinding the commitment value, singing the commitment value tuple, establishing the vote tuple, apparatus, commitment unit, blinding unit, signature unit, voting unit, voting device, memory, program, a processor, storage medium, and a computer program. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such generating data based on equations, validating and storing the data based on equations and out-putting a result based on further equations. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Netherlands Patent Application Publication 2026712 to Haibo et al. (Haibo).
Per claims 1, 8-10, Haibo teaches:
A trusted anonymous voting method based on a blockchain, comprising:
performing a hash operation on original voting content to obtain a hash output, wherein
the hash output comprises a commitment value cv I [Abstract, Paragraphs 0013-0014,
and 0026];
blinding the commitment value cv i based on information of other voters to obtain a commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)} and a commitment value tuple {tilde over (x)} [Paragraphs 0026-0040];
signing the commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)} by using an ESDSA to obtain a signature tuple {tilde over (s)} [Abstract, Paragraphs 0017, 0027, 0034-0049]; and
establishing a vote tuple ({tilde over (c)}, {tilde over (s)}, {tilde over (d)}) based on the commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)}, the signature tuple {tilde over (s)} and a signature tuple {tilde over (d)} of other voters, and uploading the vote tuple ({tilde over (c)}, {tilde over (s)}, {tilde over (d)}) and the commitment value tuple {tilde over (x)} to the blockchain, wherein the vote tuple ({tilde over (c)}, {tilde over (s)}, {tilde over (d)}) serves as voting content in a voting stage [Paragraphs 0040-0049],
wherein the signature tuple {tilde over (d)} is generated in a case that other voters verify the signature tuple {tilde over (s)} and the signature tuple {tilde over (s)} passes the verification, and the commitment value tuple {acute over (x)} is used to decrypt the vote tuple [Paragraphs 0034-0040].
Examiner notes that the following limitation is a conditional limitation, which does not have to occur, thus it does not have any patentable weight: “wherein the signature tuple {tilde over (d)} is generated in a case that other voters verify the signature tuple {tilde over (s)} and the signature tuple {tilde over (s)} passes the verification, and the commitment value tuple {acute over (x)} is used to decrypt the vote tuple.”
Per claim 2, Haibo teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing a hash operation on original voting content to obtain a commitment value cv i comprises:
performing the hash operation on the original voting content m and a string o to obtain the commitment value cv i , wherein the string o is randomly generated [Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0026-0028].
Per claim 3, Haibo teaches, wherein the blinding the commitment value cv i based on information of other voters to obtain a commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)} and a commitment value tuple {tilde over (x)} comprises:
performing, for each of other voters, a point multiplication operation in an elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) on public key information pkj and Figure US20240273649A1-20240815-P00030 of the voter to obtain a blinding factor tj;
hashing the commitment value cv i based on the blinding factor tj to a new commitment value xj and a new commitment value cj; and
collecting commitment values xj to obtain a commitment value tuple {tilde over (x)}, and signing each of commitment values cj by using a private key ski to obtain the commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)} [Paragraphs 0017-0020, 0040-0044 and claims 3-6].
Per claim 4, Haibo teaches, wherein the signing the commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)} by using an ESDSA to obtain a signature tuple {tilde over (s)} comprises:
performing the hash operation on a tuple (IDi, addri, Figure US20240273649A1-20240815-P00031) to obtain the signature tuple {tilde over (s)}, wherein IDi and addri represent identification and address information of a target voter respectively, and Figure US20240273649A1-20240815-P00032 represents a commitment value in the commitment value tuple {tilde over (c)} corresponding to a voter nv [Abstract, Paragraphs 0017, 0027, 0034-0049].
Per claim 5, Haibo teaches, wherein the hash output further comprises a commitment value ov i , and the method further comprises:
obtaining the signature tuple {tilde over (d)} and the commitment value tuple {tilde over (x)} from the blockchain, and calculating a signature tuple {tilde over (y)} of other voters based on the signature tuple {tilde over (d)};
verifying validity of yn v based on the commitment value cv i and the commitment value tuple {tilde over (x)} by using a preset algorithm VerifyS to obtain all signature elements yn v that pass the verification, wherein yn v represents a signature element in the signature tuple {tilde over (y)} corresponding to the voter nv;
obtaining a commitment string xn v corresponding to each of the signature elements yn v that pass the verification, establishing a new signature tuple {tilde over (y)} based on all the signature elements yn v that pass the verification, and establishing a new commitment tuple {tilde over (x)} based on all commitment strings xn v ; and
uploading a vote tuple (cv i , ov i , {tilde over (x)}, {tilde over (y)}) to the blockchain with a random address, wherein the vote tuple (cv i , ov i , {tilde over (x)}, {tilde over (y)}) serves as voting content in an opening voting stage [Abstract, Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0027, 0034-0049].
Per claim 6, Haibo teaches obtaining the vote tuple (cv i , ov i , {tilde over (x)}, {tilde over (y)}) from the blockchain, and verifying the signature tuple {tilde over (y)} by using a preset algorithm V; and
verifying, in a case that more than a preset proportion of signature elements ŷ in the signature tuple {tilde over (y)} pass the verification, the original voting content based on the commitment tuples cv i and ov i by using the preset algorithm [Abstract, Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0027, 0034-0049].
Per claim 7, Haibo teaches, wherein the verifying the original voting content based on the commitment tuples cv i and ov i by using the preset algorithm comprises:
serializing the commitment tuple ov i to obtain a serialized string of commitment tuple ov i ;
performing the hash operation on the inputted original voting content m and the serialized string of commitment tuple ov i , to obtain a hash value ĉ; and
determining whether ĉ is equal to cv i , and determining that the original voting content m passes the verification in a case that ĉ is equal to cv i [Abstract, Paragraphs 0004, 0025-0026, 0032-0037, and 0049-0050].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
Examiner notes that the cited references also teach all of the Applicant’s claimed scope. A review of the references by the Applicant is urged in order to help advance prosecution by determining whether the Specification of the instant Application includes technical elements that are different than what is settled in the art. Furthermore, such technical elements, if present, would help if they are noted as providing a solution to a technical problem, which must be captured by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685