Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/674,852

FULLY HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTED PROCESSING ACCELERATION

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
May 25, 2024
Examiner
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
Art Unit
2445
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Niobium Microsystems
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
514 granted / 676 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
698
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 676 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claims 11-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. Claims 11-29 are directed to an independent and distinct invention from a dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator coupled to a mass memory, a high-speed bus interconnect, and an interface, wherein the interface receives input data to be stored in the memory and sends output data to the processing board, where the dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator converts input data to output data by performing operations on the input data. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 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. Claim 1 is 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. Multiple amendments to claim 1 are not supported by the originally filed specification, contrary to Applicant’s remarks of 18 November 2025. For example, there is no mention of a “sequence of powers of a set of seed values” in paragraph [0060] of the specification. The specification does not support the input data being encrypted before going to the dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator, but only supports generic input data. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim limitations “multiply-accumulate unit” and “number theoretic transform unit” 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 claim states that these are part of the “dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator”, but does not state what the separate structure is for both the “multiply-accumulate unit” and the “number theoretic transform unit”. The specification [0038] states that these units are “processing elements”, but does not disclose the structure needed for the “processing elements”. 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 § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bottleson et al. (US 2024/0171371). In regard to claim 1, Bottleson disclosed a device for executing programs and processing data that have been homomorphically encrypted, the device comprising: an interface to a host system board; Bottleson 136 a mass memory; Bottleson [0017] a high-speed bus interconnect coupled to the mass memory and the interface; and Bottleson Figure 1 a dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator comprising a multiply-accumulate unit and a number theoretic transform (NTT) unit Bottleson 136, [0019]: wherein the dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator is communicatively coupled to the mass memory, the high-speed bus interconnect, and the interface; wherein: the interface: receives encrypted input data to be stored in the mass memory; and Bottleson [0019] sends encrypted output data from the mass memory to the processing board; and Bottleson [0019] the dedicated fully homomorphic encryption accelerator: reads the encrypted input data from the mass memory; Bottleson [0019] at the multiply-accumulate unit, generates a sequence of powers of a set of seed values; and Bottleson [0064]-[0068] generates input data to the encrypted output data, comprising, at the NTT unit, performing NTT operations on the encrypted input data using the sequence of powers. Bottleson [0064]-[0068] Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ren et al. US 12,489,603 Rao US 11,914,757 Boemer et al. US 2023/0297371 Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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. Jeffrey R. Swearingen Primary Examiner Art Unit 2445 /Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598106
POLICY MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT IN A GREEN ELASTIC NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585642
Natural language interface for querying cloud security logs
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587563
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING AND REMEDIATING DDOS ATTACKS BASED ON ENERGY CONSUMPTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585797
FEDERATED DATA QUERY METHODS AND APPARATUSES BASED ON PRIVACY PRESERVING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579315
Systems and methods for removing sensitive data from a cloud-based system
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+22.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 676 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month