DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 22 April 2026. By this response, Claims 1-12 have been canceled. New Claims 13-32 have been added. Claims 13-32 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to the Requirement for Information under 37 CFR 1.105 (pages 20-22 of the present response) is acknowledged as a complete reply to the requirement for information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of canceled Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (pages 19-20 of the present response) have been considered to the extent that they are relevant to the new claims but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments related to whether the claim effects a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing (see page 16 of the present response) appear to misapprehend this particular test. Although Applicant argues that the various algorithms transform data from one form to another, data is not an “article” (which includes a physical object or substance) in the meaning of this test. See MPEP § 2106.05(c). However, to the extent that the new claims are considered to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application, as set forth below, this argument is now moot in view of the cancellation of the claims.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant argues that the new claims address the issues raised with respect to the canceled claims (pages 17-19 of the present response). These arguments are acknowledged, and although the rejection of Claims 1-12 is moot in view of the cancellation of the claims, the new claims are rejected as set forth below because they have raised new issues of indefiniteness.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 22 April 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. In particular, the IDS does not include a column that provides a space for the examiner’s initials (and it is noted that the IDS also does not include a space for the examiner’s signature and date). However, as a courtesy, the information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings as requiring a prior art label and for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and (5) are withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. However, Claim 19 is separated from Claim 14, from which it depends, by Claims 15-18 which do not depend from Claim 14. Further, Claim 24 is separated from Claim 21, from which it depends, by Claims 22 and 23 which do not depend from Claim 21, and Claim 31 is separated from Claim 28, from which it depends, by Claims 29 and 30 which do not depend from Claim 28. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are moot in view of the cancellation of the claims. New Claims 20-26 clearly exclude embodiments which constitute software per se. Further, new Claims 13-32 are considered to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the generated keys are used to compute ciphertexts that are transmitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is moot in view of the cancellation of the claims.
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.
Claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “a functional encryption setup algorithm” in line 6 and “the functional encryption setup algorithm” in line 9. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the “setup algorithm for the functional encryption scheme” recited in lines 4-5 or to a distinct algorithm. The claim further recites “the master public key” in lines 16 and 38, and “the master secret key” in lines 16 and 20. It is not clear whether these are intended to refer to the first functional encryption master public (or secret) key of step (a)(i), the second functional encryption master public (or secret) key of step (a)(ii), or the formed master public (or secret) key of step (a)(iii). The claim additionally recites “the random value” in lines 43 and 46. It is not clear to which of the plural random values (see lines 25 and 41) these limitations are intended to refer. The claim also recites “the ciphertext” in line 50. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first functional encryption ciphertext of step (c)(iv), one of the second functional encryption ciphertexts of step (c)(v), or the formed ciphertext of step (c)(vi). The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites steps labeled as (a)(i)-(iv). However, Claim 13 also recited steps with these labels, and it is not clear whether these are intended to replace or further limit those steps, or if they are distinct steps with the same labels. If the latter is what is intended, then different labels should be used for the different steps. Claim 14 further recites “the ciphertext” in lines 6 and 9. It is not clear to which of the plural ciphertexts this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 15 recites elements labeled (a) and (b). However, Claim 13 also recited steps with these labels, and it is not clear whether these are intended to replace or further limit those steps, or if they are distinct steps with the same labels. If the latter is what is intended, then different labels should be used for the different steps. Claim 15 recites “sampling the random values” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the sampling in step (b)(iii) or (c)(iii) or both. The claim further recites “the random vector” in lines 7 and 9. However, the claims recite both a random vector (without further modifiers) and plural random sub-function vectors, and it is not clear to which of these plural vectors these limitations are intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “to produce the set of label functions…” in line 10. It is not grammatically clear what this phrase is intended to modify.
Claim 18 recites “the ciphertext” in line 1. It is not clear to which of the plural ciphertexts this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 20 recites “the master public key” in lines 15 and 36, and “the master secret key” in lines 15 and 20. It is not clear whether these are intended to refer to the first functional encryption master public (or secret) key of step (a)(i), the second functional encryption master public (or secret) key of step (a)(ii), or the formed master public (or secret) key of step (a)(iii). The claim further recites “the random value” in lines 41 and 44. It is not clear to which of the plural random values (see lines 24 and 40) these limitations are intended to refer. The claim also recites “the ciphertext” in line 48. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first functional encryption ciphertext of step (c)(iv), one of the second functional encryption ciphertexts of step (c)(v), or the formed ciphertext of step (c)(vi). The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 21 recites elements labeled as (a)(i)-(iv). However, Claim 20 also recited elements with these labels, and it is not clear whether these are intended to replace or further limit those elements, or if they are distinct elements with the same labels. If the latter is what is intended, then different labels should be used for the different elements. Claim 21 further recites “the decryption device comprising a fourth hardware processor and a fourth electronic memory” in lines 2-3. Although Claim 20 recites a decryption device, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation, although it appears that this may be intended as a further limitation on the decryption device. Claim 21 additionally recites “the ciphertext” in line 7. It is not clear to which of the plural ciphertexts this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 26 recites “the ciphertext” in line 1. It is not clear to which of the plural ciphertexts this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 27 recites “a functional encryption setup algorithm” in line 8 and “the functional encryption setup algorithm” in line 11. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the “setup algorithm for the functional encryption scheme” recited in line 6 or to a distinct algorithm. The claim further recites “the master public key” in lines 18 and 36, and “the master secret key” in lines 18 and 22. It is not clear whether these are intended to refer to the first functional encryption master public (or secret) key of step (a)(i), the second functional encryption master public (or secret) key of step (a)(ii), or the formed master public (or secret) key of step (a)(iii). The claim additionally recites “the random value” in lines 40 and 43. It is not clear to which of the plural random values (see lines 26 and 38) these limitations are intended to refer. The claim also recites “the ciphertext” in line 47. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first functional encryption ciphertext of step (c)(iv), one of the second functional encryption ciphertexts of step (c)(v), or the formed ciphertext of step (c)(vi). The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 28 recites operations labeled as (a)(i)-(iv). However, Claim 27 also recited operations with these labels, and it is not clear whether these are intended to replace or further limit those operations, or if they are distinct operations with the same labels. If the latter is what is intended, then different labels should be used for the different operations. Claim 28 further recites “the ciphertext” in line 6. It is not clear to which of the plural ciphertexts this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 18 recites “the ciphertext” in line 1. It is not clear to which of the plural ciphertexts this limitation is intended to refer.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al, “Compact Adaptively Secure ABE from k-Lin: Beyond NC1 and towards NL”, in view of Abdalla et al, “Functional Encryption for Attribute-Weighted Sums from k-Lin” (cited by Applicant).
In reference to Claim 13, Lin discloses a method that includes executing a setup algorithm that includes executing a setup algorithm that includes executing a functional encryption setup algorithm twice to generate two sets of master public/secret key pairs and form and store a master public key and secret key from the two generated public and private keys (see page 85, construction 52, and Setup); executing a key generation algorithm by receiving the master secret key (page 85, construction 52, and KeyGen), sampling random values from a distribution over a finite field(page 6, piecewise security describes sampling), executing a garbling procedure (pages 4-5, Arithmetic Key Garbling Scheme), computing functional encryption secret keys and outputting and storing a functional decryption key including the plurality of functional encryption secret keys storing the secret key as the secret keys and function (page 85, construction 52, KeyGen); and executing an encryption method that includes receiving the master public key and public and private attributes, sampling a random value and computing first and second functional encryption ciphertexts and forming and transmitting a ciphertext to a decryption device (see page 86, construction 52, Enc algorithm). However, Lin does not explicitly disclose receiving a weight function for computing an attribute-weighted sum.
Abdalla discloses a method that includes executing a setup algorithm that includes executing a functional encryption setup algorithm twice to generate two sets of master public/secret key pairs and form and store a master public key and secret key from the two generated public and private keys (see sections 4.1 and 7.1, Setup), executing a key generation algorithm by receiving the master secret key, receiving a weight function for computing an attribute weighted sum where the weight function includes sub-functions, sampling random values from a distribution over a finite field, executing a garbling procedure, computing functional encryption secret keys and outputting and storing a functional decryption key including the plurality of functional encryption secret keys storing the secret key as the secret keys and function (sections 4.1 and 7.1, KeyGen, where f is the weight function); and executing an encryption method that includes receiving the master public key and public and private attributes, sampling a random value and computing first and second functional encryption ciphertexts and forming and transmitting a ciphertext to a decryption device (sections 4.1 and 7.1, Enc algorithm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin to include the weight function of Abdalla, in order to apply the scheme of Lin to the more specific problem of attribute-weighted sums (see Abdalla, section 1).
In reference to Claims 14 and 19, Lin and Abdalla further disclose executing a decryption algorithm that includes receiving the functional decryption key, receiving the public attributes and ciphertext, retrieving respective functional encryption secret keys and ciphertexts, and decrypting the first and second ciphertexts obtain decrypted values, executing an evaluation algorithm of the garbling procedure to obtain an intermediate result, and recover from the decrypted values and intermediate result a functional value representing the attribute-weighted sum (see Lin, page 86, construction 52, Dec algorithm; see also Abdalla, sections 4.1 and 7.1, Dec algorithm) where recovering the functional value includes computing the attribute-weighted sum from the intermediate result and an inner product (see Abdalla, sections 4.1 and 7.1).
In reference to Claim 15, Lin and Abdalla further disclose sampling the random values from random vectors and sampling random values from the distribution and using the random input values, a function and sub-functions, to produce the label functions (see Lin, page 86, construction 52, and pages 4-5, garbling; see also Abdalla, section 3, sampling).
In reference to Claim 16, Lin and Abdalla further disclose performing functional encryption computations over asymmetric bilinear groups of prime order (see Lin, section 3.2, and Abdalla, section 3.1).
In reference to Claim 17, Lin and Abdalla further disclose using the first and second public keys for encrypting public and private attributes such that the attribute-weighted sum is computable without revealing individual values of the private attributes (see Abdalla, sections 7.1, Enc algorithm and theorem 3).
In reference to Claim 18, Lin and Abdalla further disclose that the size of the ciphertext is independent from the number of appearances of attributes in the weight function (see Abdalla, section 7.1).
Claims 20-26 are directed to systems having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 13-19, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 27-32 are directed to software implementations of the methods of Claims 13, 14, and 16-19, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights