DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response with amendments filed on 12/29/2025 has been received and entered. Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20; and, cancelled claims 4, 11 and 18. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) for claims 15-17 and 19-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2025, pages 17-19, in regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims 1-20, now 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
“Applicant amended claim 1 to highlight that the claimed is executed in a privacy-preserving computation system comprising a client and three participant nodes serving as computing devices […]”;
“From the amended claim 1, it can be seen that the method is implemented between the client and three participant nodes as computation devices, and the computation operations performed in three participant nodes are too complex to be performed in a human mind.”;
“Since the three participants ultimately hold a slice matrix of the three-party hybrid multiplication computation result, according to incomplete information theory, none of the participants can infer the overall final computation result or deduce the original input data of other participants based on partial information due to the lack of complete data information. Therefore, the security of the computation results under this scheme can be strictly ensured.”; and,
“Thus, the subject matter of amended claim I is an improvement of the privacy-preserving computation technology widely used in scenarios such as collaborative big data mining and collaborative modeling in machine learning, to implement privacy-preserving computation in a high-efficient, secure, and reliable manner and high coupling performance.”
The claimed method includes a privacy-preserving computation request, several rounds of computation operations according to a two/three-party matrix multiplication protocol and ends with the requester obtaining a final computation result through summarization of the matrices each one of the parties computed. Both claims 1 and 6, as amended, set forth a judicial exception because mathematical relationships and calculations have been considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping, and thus characterized as abstract ideas.
The MPEP 2106.04(d) establishes that:
“[…] after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. 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. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.” (emphasis added).
However, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite the steps to be performed by a requester and by a first, second and third participants. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In the context of the claims, the mathematical operations by various participants and the exchange and storage of the results of these mathematical operations indicate that the claims are directed toward the mathematical computation and not a practical application of the computation(s).
Examiner suggests incorporating features directed to the implementation and/or practical application of the computation result, for instance. Potential sources of limitations and/or features that may aid in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection include, but are not limited to, ¶[0003] and ¶[0078] of the instant specifications.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments: claim 4, not rejected under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 in the previous action, has been incorporated in full into independent (base) claim 1; and, claim 6, not rejected under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 in the previous action, has been rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1. All other claims are now dependent upon either claim 1 or claim 6.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed towards privacy-preserving computation method for secure two- and three-party matrix multiplication protocol. The limitations in claims 1 and 6 are directed to a process that recites a series of mathematical computation operations to obtain a final computation result of a secure three-party hybrid multiplication.
These limitations as drafted set forth a judicial exception because mathematical relationships and calculations have been considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping, and thus characterized as abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite the steps to be performed by a requester and by a first, second and third participants. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In the context of the claims, the mathematical operations by various participants and the exchange and storage of the results of these mathematical operations are no more than mental steps with the aid generic computer components and indicate that the claims are directed toward the mathematical computation and not a practical application of the computation(s). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims further limit claims 1 and 6 by providing additional elements regarding the privacy-preserving computation method for secure two- and three-party matrix multiplication protocol. The limitations in claims 2-3, 5, 7-20 are directed to a process that recites a series of mathematical operations to obtain a final computation result of a secure three-party hybrid multiplication as well. These limitations as drafted set forth a judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1 and 6 above.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 2-3, 5, 7-20 are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s note: please refer to item #3 under “Response to Amendment/Arguments” above for a detailed explanation and suggestions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are not rejected under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bellala et al. (US 20180219842 A1)
Cerezo Sanchez (US 20180276417 A1)
Diamond (US 20090282039 A1)
Gama et al. (US 20200304293 A1)
Gupta et al. (US 10873461 B2)
Horne et al. (WO 2023014929 A1)
Liu et al. (CN 115065461 A)
LV et al. (US 20220091891 A1)
Li et al. (US 11386212 B2)
Liu et al. (US 20230385446 A1)
Madisetti et al. (US 10102265 B1)
Mohassel et al. (US 20220092216 A1)
Paunoiu et al. (US 20250219812 A1)
Peng et al. (CN 117290866 A)
Xi et al. (CN 112631767 A)
Yanai (US 20240129105 A1)
Yanai et al. (US 20230179406 A1)
Zhao et al. (CN 113849806 A)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DORIANNE ALVARADO DAVID whose telephone number is (571)272-4228. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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.
/DORIANNE ALVARADO DAVID/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499