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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were previously examined.
Claims 1-17 have been amended on August 14, 2026.
Claims 1-17 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see under “Rejection Under USC 101” filed August 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
On pages 6-7, Applicant argued that the claims are related a ‘system that can perform quantum error correction and quantum homomorphic encryption simultaneously by performing quantum error correction encoding’…while the conventional systems is ''perform[ing] encoding for quantum homomorphic encryption and encoding for quantum error correction separately ... requires two encoding processes ... resulting in a high resource demand for operations'' …On the other hand, ''the present disclosure presents a quantum homomorphic encryption method that can perform quantum error correction and quantum homomorphic encryption simultaneously by performing a single quantum error correction encoding'' …Therefore, the embodiment of FIG. 3 has the advantage of efficiently utilizing computational resources by reducing the amount of computation compared to a conventional quantum error correction code-based quantum homomorphic encryption technology"
In Responses:
Examiner disagreed.
The body of the claim only requires to (1) creating a first qubit state by encoding on the input data, (2) creating a second qubit state by grouping 1st and 3rd qubit state and (3) encrypting the second qubit state by performing a random permutation. The three steps are sequentially performed (see figure 3) and not in “simultaneously performed” . In addition, the body of the claim does not even mention about “quantum homomorphic encryption simultaneously by performing a single quantum error correction encoding''
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., perform quantum error correction and quantum homomorphic encryption simultaneously by performing a single quantum error correction encoding'' ) 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).
Examiner disagreed.
Examiner found no evidence that the recited claim would result in “advantage of efficiently utilizing computational resources by reducing the amount of computation compared to a conventional quantum error correction code-based quantum homomorphic encryption technology"
Examiner disagreed.
The recited claim does not even provide a result (or improvement ) after performing (1) creating a first qubit state by encoding on the input data, (2) creating a second qubit state by grouping 1st and 3rd qubit state and (3) encrypting the second qubit state by performing a random permutation.
As such, the abstract rejection is maintained.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “creating a first qubit state that includes ancilla qubits, by performing quantum error correction encoding on data; creating a second qubit state that includes the qubits and the ancilla qubits of the first qubit state, by grouping each qubit of the first qubit state with a plurality of the ancilla qubits of the first qubit state into a plurality of third qubit states and concatenating together the plurality of third qubit states; and encrypting the second qubit state by performing a random permutation on the second qubit state” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mental and mathematical processes but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “a quantum homomorphic encryption method performed by a computing device, comprising:” (see claim 1) , and “a quantum homomorphic encryption system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing a computer program, which is executed by the at least one processor, wherein the computer” (see claim 9) and “A computer program stored on a computer-readable recording medium for executing, by being coupled to a computing device, the steps of” (see claim 17)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and software module, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The human mind with generic computer can (1) creating a first qubit state…by performing quantum error correction encoding on data based on mathematical processes ; (2) creating a second qubit state that includes the qubits and the ancilla qubits of the first qubit state, by grouping each qubit of the first qubit state with a plurality of the ancilla qubits of the first qubit state into a plurality of third qubit states and concatenating together the plurality of third qubit states based on mathematical processes; and (3) encrypting the second qubit state by performing a random permutation on the second qubit state based on mathematical processes
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract limitation.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a generic processor such as “a quantum homomorphic encryption method performed by a computing device, comprising:” (see claim 1) , and “a quantum homomorphic encryption system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing a computer program, which is executed by the at least one processor, wherein the computer” (see claim 9) and “A computer program stored on a computer-readable recording medium for executing, by being coupled to a computing device, the steps of” (see claim 17) for creating a first/second qubit state and (3) encrypting the qubit states.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level for creating a first/second qubit state and (3) encrypting the qubit states.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1-17 do not recite any additional elements except a generic processor such as “a quantum homomorphic encryption method performed by a computing device, comprising:” (see claim 1) , and “a quantum homomorphic encryption system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing a computer program, which is executed by the at least one processor, wherein the computer” (see claim 9) and “A computer program stored on a computer-readable recording medium for executing, by being coupled to a computing device, the steps of” (see claim 17) for creating a first/second qubit state and (3) encrypting the qubit states.
Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing code generation
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
It is suggested that Applicant to add limitation of utilizing the encrypted second qubit states for useful purpose in order to overcome the abstract rejection. The recited claims does not use the encrypted second qubit states for any useful purpose that would improve the technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed if Applicant overcome the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights