DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
Figures 3 and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “908” has been used to designate both a network interface device and a video display unit in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 910 (see page 46, line 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 5 recites a system that comprises a processor that is configured for performing various functions. It appears that the processor could be implemented as a software process (e.g. as a virtual machine) and is not clearly limited to a hardware processor or microprocessor, and therefore, the claim encompasses embodiments which constitute software per se. Computer software does not fall within any of the statutory classes of invention. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 72, 175 USPQ 673, 676-77 (1972). Software does not constitute a statutory process, because the software itself is not a series of steps that are performed. Software is also not a machine, article, or composition of matter. When a claim encompasses both statutory and non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is considered to be directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106(II). Claims 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected Claim 5.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that includes executing a setup algorithm, which includes executing a functional encryption setup algorithm to generate key pairs and outputting and storing the key pairs, and executing a key generation algorithm, which includes sampling random values, setting other values, generating keys, and outputting and storing a key. The steps of executing the setup algorithm, generating keys, sampling random values, and setting other values all constitute mathematical calculations. These calculations constitute mathematical concepts, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite substantial further action after generating the keys. Although the claim does recite outputting and storing the keys, this constitutes insignificant post-solution activity, i.e. necessary output of the mathematical operations, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Similarly, the steps of receiving the keys are simple data gathering, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). There is nothing that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract ideas in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). At most, the recitations of the method nd algorithms being “computerized” constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract ideas in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of storing and receiving the keys constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Versata and OIP Techs. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the steps are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1, and also recites an abstract idea for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to Claim 1. The recitation of the processor is at a generic level and constitutes nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the system claim is also not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is directed to machine-readable storage media storing instructions, where the instructions, when executed, cause a processor to perform functions corresponding substantially to the method of Claim 1. While the claim is directed to a machine-readable storage medium, there is no particular structure recited in the claim; rather, the claim is limited only by its functionality. This functionality is directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to Claim 1. That the claim recites computer instructions does not constitute anything more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the medium of Claim 9 is not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 only recite additional mathematical steps relating to encrypting or decrypting a message using the stored keys. The steps of sampling randomness, setting values, computing ciphertext, decrypting ciphertexts, running the evaluation algorithm, and recovering values constitute additional mathematical operations which also recite abstract mathematical concepts, and the steps of receiving, outputting, and storing are insignificant extra-solution or post-solution activity as discussed above. Therefore, the dependent claims also do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1-12 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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 1 recites “A computerized method for encrypting” in line 1; however, no encryption occurs in Claim 1 (although it does occur in Claim 2) which therefore appears to be an omission of essential subject matter or a gap in the claim. The claim further recites sampling random values α, βt as well as sampling random values rt in lines 14 and 15 but does not define from where (e.g. from what data or set) these values are to be sampled. The claim additionally recites “the garbling procedure randomizes a function… and the garbling procedure outputs a set of label functions” in lines 16-17. It is not clear whether the garbling procedure is actually performed and if these are intended to be steps of the claimed method. The claim also recites “setting values v as α”, “setting values v1,t comprising l1,t, α”, “setting values v-j,t as lj,t”, and “setting values v^t comprising rt, α” in lines 19, 20, 22, and 23. It is not clear if there is more than one of v and/or α, and it is not clear if these values are set in a one-to-one manner or what is used to set these values. The claim further recites “the output” in lines 25-26. It is not clear whether this refers to the output master keys, output label functions, or the output secret key. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “receiving the master public key” in line 3. It is not clear from where the key is received. The claim further recites “sampling randomness s” in line 5 but does not define from where (e.g. from what data or set) this is to be sampled. The claim additionally recites “setting values u comprising s, x” in line 5 and “setting values ht comprising of s and z” in line 7. First, it is not clear if there is more than one of u, and it is not clear if these values are set in a one-to-one manner or what is used to set these values. Further, the phrase “comprising of” is unclear as to whether this is intended to read “comprising” or “consisting of”. The claim also recites “the output” in line 9. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the output master keys, output label functions, output secret key, or output ciphertext.
Claim 3 recites “receiving the function f and the secret key” in line 3 and “receiving one or more public attributes x and a ciphertext” in line 4. It is not clear from where these are to be received. The claim further recites “the decryption algorithm of FE” in lines 8, 10, and 12 and “the evaluation algorithm of the garbling scheme” in line 14. There is not sufficient antecedent basis in the claims for any of the decryption algorithm, the evaluation algorithm, or the garbling scheme (although it appears the latter may be intended to refer to the garbling procedure). The claim additionally recites “and get a value” in lines 9, 11, 13, and 15. The tense of “get” is not clear as to how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. The claim also recites “the functional value µ” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim further recites “the output” in line 17. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the output master keys, output label functions, output secret key, output ciphertext, or output plaintext.
Claim 4 recites “the first set” in line 1 and “the second set” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “A system for encrypting” in line 1; however, no encryption occurs in Claim 5 (although it does occur in Claim 6) which therefore appears to be an omission of essential subject matter or a gap in the claim. The claim additionally recites “an electronic setup storage unit” in lines 8-9 and “an electronic key generation storage unit” in lines 25-26. It is not clear whether these storage units are intended to be elements of the claimed system. The claim further recites sampling random values α, βt as well as sampling random values rt in lines 14 and 15 but does not define from where (e.g. from what data or set) these values are to be sampled. The claim additionally recites “the garbling procedure randomizes a function… and the garbling procedure outputs a set of label functions” in lines 15-17. It is not clear whether the garbling procedure is actually performed and if these are intended to be functions that the processor is configured for. The claim also recites “setting values v as α”, “setting values v1,t comprising l1,t, α”, “setting values v-j,t as lj,t”, and “setting values v^t comprising rt, α” in lines 19, 20, 22, and 23. It is not clear if there is more than one of v and/or α, and it is not clear if these values are set in a one-to-one manner or what is used to set these values. The claim further recites “the output” in lines 25-26. It is not clear whether this refers to the output master keys, output label functions, or the output secret key. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “receiving the master public key” in line 2. It is not clear from where the key is received. The claim further recites “sampling randomness s” in line 4 but does not define from where (e.g. from what data or set) this is to be sampled. The claim additionally recites “setting values u comprising s, x” in line 4 and “setting values ht comprising of s and z” in line 6. First, it is not clear if there is more than one of u, and it is not clear if these values are set in a one-to-one manner or what is used to set these values. Further, the phrase “comprising of” is unclear as to whether this is intended to read “comprising” or “consisting of”. The claim also recites “the output” in line 8. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the output master keys, output label functions, output secret key, or output ciphertext. The claim further recites “an electronic encryption device storage unit” in lines 8-9. It is not clear whether this storage unit is intended to be an element of the claimed system.
Claim 7 recites “receiving the function f and the secret key” in line 2 and “receiving one or more public attributes x and a ciphertext” in line 3. It is not clear from where these are to be received. The claim further recites “the decryption algorithm of FE” in lines 7, 9, and 11 and “the evaluation algorithm of the garbling scheme” in line 13. There is not sufficient antecedent basis in the claims for any of the decryption algorithm, the evaluation algorithm, or the garbling scheme (although it appears the latter may be intended to refer to the garbling procedure). The claim additionally recites “and get a value” in lines 8, 10, 12, and 14. The tense of “get” is not clear as to how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. The claim also recites “the functional value µ” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim further recites “the output” in line 16. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the output master keys, output label functions, output secret key, output ciphertext, or output plaintext. The claim additionally recites “an electronic decryption device storage unit” in line 16. It is not clear whether this storage unit is intended to be an element of the claimed system.
Claim 8 recites “the first set” in line 1 and “the second set” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “to cause a processor to encrypt” in line 2; however, no encryption occurs in Claim 9 (although it does occur in Claim 10) which therefore appears to be an omission of essential subject matter or a gap in the claim. The claim further recites sampling random values α, βt as well as sampling random values rt in lines 15 and 16 but does not define from where (e.g. from what data or set) these values are to be sampled. The claim additionally recites “the garbling procedure randomizes a function… and the garbling procedure outputs a set of label functions” in lines 16-18. It is not clear whether the garbling procedure is actually performed and if these are intended to be steps of the claimed method. The claim also recites “setting values v as α”, “setting values v1,t comprising l1,t, α”, “setting values v-j,t as lj,t”, and “setting values v^t comprising rt, α” in lines 20, 21, 23, and 24. It is not clear if there is more than one of v and/or α, and it is not clear if these values are set in a one-to-one manner or what is used to set these values. The claim further recites “the output” in lines 26-27. It is not clear whether this refers to the output master keys, output label functions, or the output secret key. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “receiving the master public key” in line 3. It is not clear from where the key is received. The claim further recites “sampling randomness s” in line 5 but does not define from where (e.g. from what data or set) this is to be sampled. The claim additionally recites “setting values u comprising s, x” in line 5 and “setting values ht comprising of s and z” in line 7. First, it is not clear if there is more than one of u, and it is not clear if these values are set in a one-to-one manner or what is used to set these values. Further, the phrase “comprising of” is unclear as to whether this is intended to read “comprising” or “consisting of”. The claim also recites “the output” in line 9. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the output master keys, output label functions, output secret key, or output ciphertext.
Claim 11 recites “receiving the function f and the secret key” in line 3 and “receiving one or more public attributes x and a ciphertext” in line 4. It is not clear from where these are to be received. The claim further recites “the decryption algorithm of FE” in lines 8, 10, and 12 and “the evaluation algorithm of the garbling scheme” in line 14. There is not sufficient antecedent basis in the claims for any of the decryption algorithm, the evaluation algorithm, or the garbling scheme (although it appears the latter may be intended to refer to the garbling procedure). The claim additionally recites “and get a value” in lines 9, 11, 13, and 15. The tense of “get” is not clear as to how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. The claim also recites “the functional value µ” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim further recites “the output” in line 17. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the output master keys, output label functions, output secret key, output ciphertext, or output plaintext.
Claim 12 recites “the first set” in line 1 and “the second set” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Any claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Because the claims are rendered indefinite due to the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are also directed to non-eligible subject matter as detailed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-12 in order to analyze the claims for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant are cited on the attached form PTOL-892 and prior art has been applied to the extent that the claims can be interpreted.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al, “Compact Adaptively Secure ABE from k-Lin: Beyond NC1 and towards NL”.
In reference to Claim 1, 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, output, and store two sets of master public secret key pairs (see page 85, construction 52, and Setup); and executing a key generation algorithm by receiving the master secret key msk (page 85, construction 52, and KeyGen), sampling random values (page 6, piecewise security describes sampling) for input for a garbling procedure (pages 4-5, Arithmetic Key Garbling Scheme), setting values v for various slots and generating secret keys for the values and outputting an storing the secret key as the secret keys and function (page 85, construction 52, KeyGen).
In reference to Claim 2, Lin further discloses an encryption method that includes receiving the public key and attributes, sampling randomness and setting values and computing, outputting, and storing functional encryption ciphertext (see page 86, construction 52, Enc algorithm).
In reference to Claim 3, Lin further discloses a decryption method that includes receiving the secret key for a function and receiving the public attributes and ciphertext, retrieving respective portions of the secret key and ciphertext, and decrypting the portions to get output values that are input to an evaluation algorithm and used to recover a value that is output and stored as the plaintext (see page 86, construction 52, Dec algorithm).
In reference to Claim 4, Lin further discloses a first set for encrypting a public part of attributes and a second set for encrypting a private part of attributes (see page 26, section 6.1, first paragraph).
Claims 5-8 are directed to systems having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-4, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 9-12 are directed to software implementations of the methods of Claims 1-4, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan et al, US Patent 12271500, discloses a system using encryption over various slots.
Wee, US Patent 12316759, discloses a method for functional encryption for quadratic functions.
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office 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
Requirement for Information Under 37 CFR 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each of the items of art referred to in the References section of Provisional Application No. 63/230,065 (see pages 85-88).
In response to this requirement, please provide copies of each publication which any of the inventors authored or co-authored and which describe the disclosed subject matter of Adaptively Secure Functional Encryption for Attribute-Weighted Sums.
In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
It appears that the bulk of the provisional application noted above may have been a previously published paper. If this paper was published, what was the date and manner of publication? If the paper was published, Applicant is also required to provide a copy as noted above.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
The timing fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to the requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492