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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 2-6 of the response, “First, the Examiner states that Applicant’s specification does not define how the claimed output values are provided from their respective input values using their designated ‘algorithm mode’…An example of the method with univariate higher polynomials according to the present application is constructed as discussed below. By utilizing the algebraic pseudorandom function, a dynamic group delegation scheme for matrix-vector multiplication is provided…Applicant respectfully submit that in light of the disclosure in the specification as filed and based on the above-discussed explanations, those skilled in the art would understand the algorithm models recited in claim 1.” In response, Applicant’s response did not address the rejection from the Non-Final mailed 17 October 2025 (“Non-Final”) with any specific citations from the specification. Additionally, the discussion provided by Applicant on pages 2-6 of the response are filled with information that cannot be found in the specification. Therefore, all the issues addressed in the Non-Final remain unanswered by Applicant’s response as the response fails to show how the specification enables those having ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The breadth of the claims requires the utilization of several “algorithm models” to generate output values from a plurality of input values. Specifically, the claims require:
Inputting the public parameter and a delegation function into a pre-established key generation algorithm model, to obtain a group administrator secret key, a group administrator public key, a trace secret key, a trace public key, a pair of a public key and a secret key of a group member, a group public key, a secret key for delegation computing, and a public key for delegation computing.
Inputting a delegation public key, a delegation secret key, the group public key, a group member secret key, a group member certificate, and a delegation input into a pre-established question generation algorithm model, to obtain an encrypted delegation input, a verification key, a computing key, a recovery key, and a group signature issued by a group member.
Inputting the computing key, the encrypted delegation input, and the verification result into a computing algorithm model, and if the signature verification is illegal, skipping performing computing, or if the signature verification is legal, computing, by the cloud server, a computing result and a correctness proof.
Inputting the delegation public key, the verification key, the computing result, and the correctness proof into a pre-established blind verification algorithm model, to obtain a blind verification result, and if the computing result is correct, returning acceptance, or if the computing result is incorrect, returning rejection.
Inputting the group public key, the group administrator secret key, a revocation token of a group member, and a revocation list into a pre-established member revocation algorithm model, adding the revocation token of the group member to the revocation list to perform a revocation function of the group member, and if the revocation succeeds, returning 1, or if the revocation fails, returning 0.
However, Applicant’s specification does not define how the claimed output values are produced from their respective input values using their designated “algorithm model”.
The state of the prior art, level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the level of predictability in the art suggests that key generation utilizes specific formulas in order to generate the output keys from specific input values. As an example, RSA private keys are generated using a couple calculations performed on several input values. Specifically, two large prime numbers p and q are used to compute value n using the formula n=pq. Value n represents one part of an RSA private key, the second part of an RSA private key is value d, which is calculated using the formula d≡ e−1 (mod λ(n)), where λ(n) = lcm(λ(p), λ(q)), and e is an integer such that 1 < e < λ(n) and gcd(e, λ(n)) = 1.
However, the specification does not provide any actual steps in claimed “algorithm model” that detail how input values are functionally utilized to arrive at the claimed output values. In other words, the specification fails to detail the formula utilized to take the input values and arrive with the claimed output values.
Additionally, the claims require the utilization of an “algorithm model” to output a real function result using a plurality of input values. Specifically, the claims require:
Inputting the recovery key, the blind verification result, and the computing result into a pre-established recovery algorithm model, and if an output of the blind verification result is acceptance, outputting a real function result, or if the output is rejection, terminating the algorithm.
However, the specification does not define how the real function result is obtained. Specifically, the specification does not define how the recovery key, the blind verification result, and the computing result are utilized to obtain the claimed real function result.
Lastly, the claims require the utilization of an “algorithm model” to obtain an opening result using a plurality of input values. Specifically, the claims require:
Inputting the group public key, a trace key, the delegation input, and the group signature into a pre-established signature opening algorithm model, to obtain an opening result, and determining an identity of a specific member of the delegation computing.
However, the specification does not define how the opening result is obtained. Specifically, the specification does not define how the group public key, a trace key, the delegation input, and the group signature are utilized to obtain the opening result.
As such, the amount of direction provided by the Inventors, in addition to the evidence specific to the other Wands factors discussed above, shows that the specification at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights