DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to arguments/amendments filed 12/09/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending with claims 1, 5, 11 and 13-17 having been amended.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to figure 1A and 1B of the drawing have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While applicant points to the subject matter eligibility guidance (2024 update, effective July 17, 2024) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), and particularly Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c), more specifically Section 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception example 41.
It is noted that in Example 41 step 2A the claims are directed to a Judicial Exception i.e. a mathematical formula or calculation but the claims is integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements in the claim (receiving the plaintext word signal at the first computer terminal, transforming the plaintext word signal to one or message block word signals MA, and transmitting the encoded ciphertext word signal CA to the second computer terminal over a communication channel) integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims of the current application do not include additional elements and only disclose outputting the computation results.
Applicant also argues that the claims are direction to a technical improvement in to field of homomorphic cryptography in particular a privacy-preserving computation using homomorphic cryptography and how homomorphic cryptography can provide end to end encryption in fields such as health care but this is not claimed. The claims are just directed to a mathematical formula or calculation without additional elements.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the claim recite “expanding the stored data representing the ciphertext, wherein the stored data comprises a seed of pseudo-random number generator and a representation of the body polynomial in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform, and wherein the expanding comprises using the pseudo-random number generator according to the seed to generate representations of the mask polynomials in the Fourier domain; and performing the privacy-preserving computation, obtaining computation results in an encrypted format, the privacy-preserving computation comprising computing polynomial products of the mask polynomials and the body polynomial by the respective multiplicand polynomials, wherein the polynomial products are computed in the Fourier domain, resulting in representations of the computed polynomial products in the Fourier domain” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional elements of a computer “storing data representing a ciphertext, wherein the ciphertext comprises one or more random mask polynomials and a body polynomial derived from the mask polynomials and a plaintext; obtaining respective multiplicand polynomials by which to multiply the mask polynomials and the body polynomial and outputting the computed polynomial products.“ The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “wherein the method comprises performing a programmable bootstrapping according to a bootstrapping key, wherein the bootstrapping key comprises the GGSW-type ciphertext and wherein the performing of the programmable bootstrapping comprises the computation of the external product” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “wherein performing the programmable bootstrapping comprises performing a blind rotation according to a test polynomial, wherein the blind rotation computes a GLWE-type encryption of a monomial multiplied by the test polynomial modulo a quotient polynomial, wherein the quotient polynomial is different from XN+1” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “comprising computing an external product of a GGSW-type ciphertext with a GLWE-based multiplicand ciphertext, wherein the GGSW-type ciphertext comprises multiple GLWE-based ciphertexts, and wherein the method comprises multiplying the mask and body polynomials of the respective GLWE-based ciphertexts by respective multiplicand polynomials based on the GLWE-based multiplicand ciphertext” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “wherein the method comprises obliviously selecting a first GLWE-based ciphertext or a second GLWE-based ciphertext based on the GGSW-type ciphertext by computing an external product of the GGSW-type ciphertext and a difference between the first and second GLWE-based ciphertexts, and adding the first GLWE- based ciphertext to the computed product” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “comprising obtaining coefficients of the respective multiplicand polynomials and applying the number-theoretic transform to convert the coefficients of the respective multiplicand polynomials into the Fourier domain, and/or applying an inverse number theoretic transform to convert a representation of a computed polynomial product in the Fourier domain to coefficients of the computed polynomial product” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “further comprising keeping the expanded stored data representing the ciphertext in a memory and using the expanded stored data to compute further polynomial products of the mask polynomials and the body polynomials by further multiplicand polynomials” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “wherein the polynomials are defined modulo a quotient polynomial, wherein the quotient polynomial divides XM-1” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “wherein the quotient polynomial is (XM-1)/(Xd - 1), wherein M = hd and d = M - N, for example, the quotient polynomial is XN+1 or Xn+n/2+1 are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “wherein the polynomials are defined over a set of cardinality 264 - 232+ 1 or of cardinality equal to a power of two” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 11 the claim recite “generating (620) the representation of the ciphertext, wherein the ciphertext comprises one or more mask polynomials and a body polynomial, by: obtaining a seed for a pseudo-random number generator; - randomly choosing the mask polynomials by using the pseudo-random number generator according to the seed to generate representations of the mask polynomials in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform; applying an inverse of the number-theoretic transform to the evaluations of the mask polynomials to determine coefficients of the mask polynomials; using the plaintext, determining coefficients of the body polynomial such that the ciphertext encrypts the plaintext; and applying the number theoretic transform to the coefficients of the body polynomial to determine a representation of the body polynomial in the Fourier domain” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional elements of a computer “obtaining a plaintext to encrypt and outputting the representation of the ciphertext, wherein the representation comprises the seed and the representation of the body polynomial in the Fourier domain“. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “comprising generating a GGSW-type ciphertext by generating multiple ciphertexts comprising one or more mask polynomials and a body polynomial, wherein the multiple ciphertexts are optionally based on the same seed” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 13 the claim recite “expand the stored data representing the ciphertext, wherein the stored data comprises a seed of pseudo-random number generator and a representation of the body polynomial in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform, and wherein the expanding comprises using the pseudo-random number generator according to the seed to generate representations of the mask polynomials in the Fourier domain; and compute polynomial products of the mask polynomials and the body polynomial by the respective multiplicand polynomials, wherein the polynomial products are computed in the Fourier domain, resulting in representations of the computed polynomial products in the Fourier domain” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional elements of a a storage for storing data representing a ciphertext, wherein the ciphertext comprises one or more random mask polynomials and a body polynomial derived from the mask polynomials and a plaintext; obtain respective multiplicand polynomials by which to multiply the mask polynomials and the body polynomial and output the computed polynomial products.“ The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 14 the claim recite “generate the representation of the ciphertext, wherein the ciphertext comprises one or more mask polynomials and a body polynomial, by: obtaining a seed for a pseudo-random number generator; - randomly choosing the mask polynomials by using the pseudo-random number generator according to the seed to generate representations of the mask polynomials in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform; applying an inverse of the number-theoretic transform to the evaluations of the mask polynomials to determine coefficients of the mask polynomials; using the plaintext, determining coefficients of the body polynomial such that the ciphertext encrypts the plaintext; and applying the number theoretic transform to the coefficients of the body polynomial to determine a representation of the body polynomial in the Fourier domain” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional elements of a computer “a storage of storing a plaintext to encrypt”; “a processor”; and outputting the representation of the ciphertext, wherein the representation comprises the seed and the representation of the body polynomial in the Fourier domain“. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component to . Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, 35 USC 112(b) and the claim objections. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to claims 1 and 13 the prior art does not teach “expanding the stored data representing the ciphertext, wherein the stored data comprises a seed of pseudo-random number generator and a representation of the body polynomial in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform, and wherein the expanding comprises using the pseudo-random number generator according to the seed to generate representations of the mask polynomials in the Fourier domain’.
With respect to claims 11 and 14 the prior art does not teach “obtaining a seed for a pseudo-random number generator; randomly choosing the mask polynomials by using the pseudo-random number generator according to the seed to generate representations of the mask polynomials in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform”.
Claim 17 is allowable.
With respect to claim 17 the prior art does not teach “a ciphertext, wherein the ciphertext comprises one or more mask polynomials and a body polynomial derived from the mask polynomials and a plaintext, wherein the data comprises a seed of a pseudo-random number generator for generating representations of the mask polynomials in a Fourier domain of a number-theoretic transform, and a representation of the body polynomial in the Fourier domain”.
Chillotti et al “Programmable Bootstrapping Enables Efficient Homomorphic Inference of Deen Neural Networks” (listed in IDS filed 12/11/2024) is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 1, and discloses a TFHE (Torus Fast Fully Homomorphic Encryption) programmable bootstrapping relying on the computation of so-called external products of GGSW-type ciphertexts C with GLWE-based ciphertext c. Generally, a GGSW-type ciphertext C encrypting a plaintext comprises multiple respective GLWE-based ciphertexts ci encrypting respective values that are based on the plaintext. The computation of the external product involves multiplying the respective GLWE-based ciphertexts ci by respective multiplicand polynomials that are based on the GLWE-based ciphertext c with which the GGSW-type ciphertext is to be computed. To perform these polynomial multiplications effectively, TFHE employs a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) over the complex numbers. The external product results an encryption of a product of the GGSW-type ciphertext C and the GLWE-based ciphertext c. A programmable bootstrapping is based on a bootstrapping key containing multiple such GGSW-type encryptions and involves repeatedly computing external products with these GGSW- type ciphertexts.
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 DEVIN E ALMEIDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rupal Dharia, can be reached on 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 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).
/DEVIN E ALMEIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2492 /RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492