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
This action is in response to the communication filed on 1/30/2026.
Claims 1-18 are examined.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16 are rejected.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 are objected.
Response to Arguments
As per Applicant’s argument / explanation dated 1/30/2026 are considered.
As per applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new rejection. New reference of Liu along with combination of references (Bajpeyi – Laine) has been updated in the office action.
Examiner is open for phone call interview to discuss further with applicant’s representative for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
‘Reason for allowance’ to be described in following communication upon discussion with attorney.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Publication 2023/0188322 to Bajpeyi et al. (hereinafter known as “Bajpeyi”) and in view of U.S. Publication 20180375640 to Laine et al. (hereinafter known as “Laine”) and further in view of U.S. Publication 2024/0146517 to Liu et al. (hereinafter known as “Liu”).
As per claim 1 Bajpeyi teaches, a method performed by a computing device comprising processing hardware and storage hardware, the method comprising:
receiving, and storing in the storage hardware, a ciphertext comprising modules (Bajpeyi Fig 1 para 52-53 teaches computing modules, rotation modules and other modules);
receiving, and storing in the storage hardware, an operation key comprising a relinearization key corresponding to the ciphertext (Bajpeyi Fig 1 para 53-54 and para 65 teaches relinearization key with key coefficients are put in the FIFO pipelining registers 420 until they are needed for a relinearization step (multiplications between aa and key.sub.m, in Relationship 2a); and
performing, by the processing hardware, a homomorphic encryption operation on the ciphertext (Bajpeyi Fig 1 para 52 and 114 teaches input ciphertext or key coefficient),
wherein a modulus of the ciphertext is determined by the processing hardware based on a dimension of the modules and a number of the modules (Bajpeyi Fig 1 para 54 teaches parameters of modules which covers dimension and number of modules – Fig 4A / 4B – para 67).
Although Bajpeyi teaches relinearization key, Laine further enhances the teaching of variable relinearization function with key in homomorphic encryption (Laine Fig 1 para 13 and 18-20 teaches the multiplication operations 112 on the ciphertexts 108 initiate the need for relinearization, and as variable relinearization in homomorphic encryption).
Bajpeyi – Laine are analogous as they are from same domain of homomorphic encryption in system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bajpeyi – Laine before him or her, to combine, Bajpeyi’’s teaching of homomorphic encryption operation on the ciphertext with different modules and parameters / dimensions (Bajpeyi Fig 1) with Laine’s teaching of homomorphic encryption with relinearization key (Laine Fig 1). The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance security encrypted form in the public cloud-based storage, and perform computations on the encrypted data directly (Laine para 2).
Bajpeyi – Laine do not teach however Liu teaches,
MLWE (module learning with errors) - based homomorphic encryption operation on the ciphertext (Liu para 4-5 teaches cryptography scheme with module learning with errors (M-LWE) and fully homomorphic encryption along with multidimensional security assurance system around the KYBER algorithm into high-performance cloud computing service platforms).
Bajpeyi – Laine – Liu are analogous as they are from same domain of homomorphic encryption in system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bajpeyi – Laine – Liu before him or her, to combine, Bajpeyi - Laine’s teaching of homomorphic encryption operation on the ciphertext with different modules and parameters / dimensions with relinearization key along with Liu’s (Liu para 4-5). The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance semantic security with respect to adaptive chosen plaintext using standard conversion (Liu para 17).
As per claim 2 combination of Bajpeyi – Laine – Liu teaches, the MLWE-based homomorphic encryption operation method of claim 1, wherein the performing the MLWE-based homomorphic encryption operation comprises: changing a ciphertext on a first modulus to a ciphertext on a second modulus (Bajpeyi Fig 6A para 71 – 72 teaches first stage and second stage of operations in multiplication encryption models Fig 6A element 610 and 612 and 608. Examiner further adds that MLWE is explained in claim 1).
As per claim 5 combination of Bajpeyi – Laine – Liu teaches, the MLWE-based homomorphic encryption operation method of claim 1, wherein the performing the MLWE-based homomorphic encryption operation on the ciphertext comprises:
based on determining that the modulus of the ciphertext has changed to a preset value or less, performing an operation of reducing the number of the modules (Bajpeyi 92-94 teaches ModAdd and BarrettModMult modules multiplication, reduction, and modular addition modules within parallel loop iterations along with the latency of the iCRT module is the sum of the latencies of a BarrettModMult which covers claimed limitation. Examiner further adds that MLWE is explained in claim 1).
Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected in accordance with claim 1.
As per claim 9 combination of Bajpeyi – Laine – Liu teaches, the homomorphic encryption operation method of claim 8, wherein the generating the ciphertext comprises:
encoding a message to be encrypted; and homomorphically encrypting the encoded message (Bajpeyi para 54-55 teaches multiplication and rotation modules are configured as fully-pipelined modules, where ciphertext data is processed each instruction clock cycle. While the ciphertext addition module generally employs a single stage of circuitry, the ciphertext multiplication and rotation modules employ multiple stages of circuitry).
As per claim 10 combination of Bajpeyi – Laine – Liu teaches, the MLWE-based homomorphic encryption operation method of claim 9, wherein the encoding comprises: mapping the message, which is in a complex number domain, to a polynomial (Bajpeyi para 54-55 teaches complex polynomials. Examiner further adds that MLWE is explained in claim 1).
Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected in accordance with claim 1.
Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected in accordance with claim 2.
Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected in accordance with claim 5.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shim et al US Publication 20240333478
Liu et al US Patent 12238207
Joye et al US Patent 12143467
Lee et al US Patent 12438710
Lee et al US Patent 12380227
Eom et al US Patent 12184771
Polyakov et al US Publication 20210399874
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 extension fee 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 VIRAL S LAKHIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3363. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 am - 6 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on 571-272-2092. 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.
/VIRAL S LAKHIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights