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 .
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 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.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Republic of Korea Application KR10-2023-0089969 filed on 07/11/2023 and KR10-2024-0029712 filed on 02/29/2024has been received on 02/25/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained in view of the amendment and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending of which claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been fully considered:
The arguments regarding to 35 USC § 101 rejection is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding to applicant’s argument that “claim 1 recites a first number-theoretic transform (NTT) that operates on column elements of an input matrix and a second NTT architecture that performs a second NTT operation on row elements of the input matrix for which a Hadamard product operation has completed, among other elements. These elements, in combination with the other features of claim 1, improve the performance of a homomorphic encryption scheme", examiner respectively disagree because “a first number-theoretic transform (NTT) that operates on column elements of an input matrix and a second NTT architecture that performs a second NTT operation on row elements of the input matrix for which a Hadamard product operation has completed” as argued are steps of mathematical calculations that belong to Mathematical Concepts group. The arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims are not abstract without specifically pointing out what is the additional claim elements in the claims and how the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding to applicant’s argument that “The claims recite several hardware elements that are clearly not generic computer components (e.g., preprocessing unit, first and second NTT architectures, a Hadamard unit). Therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea”, examiner respectively disagree because the listed hardware “first and second NTT architectures, a Hadamard unit” are fundamental computational blocks used for FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) and modular multiplication calculations. These hardware elements are still part of generic computer components.
Lastly, regarding to applicant’s argument that “claims 1 and 11 recite a server receiving a request from a client device and providing a reply to the request to the client device, the reply based on the second NTT operation. Example 41 in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance indicates that these limitations show integration and satisfy prong 2A”, examiner respectively disagree because the amended limitation “transmitting, to the client device, a response to the request based on a result of the second NTT operation” recites a response based on the result of the second NTT operation is transmitted. However, it’s not clear in the claim about the content or message in the transmitted response, for example, the response may not be necessary in the form of transformed input matrix received from the client device, as example 41 stated (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).
Therefore, 101 rejection is maintained.
The arguments regarding to 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) rejection are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawal in view of applicant’s remarks. However, new 112(b) rejection is issued below due to 112(f) interpretation.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applying the subject matter eligibility test, as outlined in MPEP 2106:
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims fall within a statutory category. Claims 111-19 are considered “machines” based claims and claims 1-10 are considered “processes”. Both machines and processes are members of the statutory categories. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong one of the subject matter eligibility test.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims recite a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. For example, claims 1 and 11 recite an input matrix comprising elements that comprise coefficients of a polynomial of a ciphertext, the input matrix corresponding to a cyphertext received in the request; performing, a preprocessing operation on the coefficients of the input matrix; performing, a first NTT operation on column elements of the input matrix, for which the preprocessing operation is completed; performing a Hadamard product operation between a result of the first NTT operation and a twiddle factor; and performing a second NTT operation on row elements of the input matrix, for which the Hadamard product operation has completed. Such processes are akin to a mathematical concept, which have been recognized as abstract ideas. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong two.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements, such as receiving … from a client device, a preprocessing unit (PU), first number-theoretic transform (NTT) architecture, a second NTT architecture and a Hadamard unit and transmitting to the client device a response do not impose any meaningful limits of on the abstract idea. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive concept
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The independent claims recite mathematical operations (NTT, Hadamard product, modular arithmetic) and then tag them to hardware blocks (PU, NTT architectures, Hadamard unit) without sufficiently detailing how the hardware configuration implements a technical improvement beyond “apply X math on Y hardware.” Further, receiving and transmitting data are generic computer functions that is common in the field of art. MPEP states that mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 11 are “directed to” an abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12:
Adds NTT unit configured to perform an NTT operation on each column and perform independent operations for different column components. This merely performs more math operations, using generic computing system, and thus does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13:
Adds the first NTT architecture corresponding to SDF NTT and the first NTT units comprises known elements (such as BU, register, first and second multiplexer do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14:
Specifies that the performing of the preprocessing operation comprises multiplying the coefficient by a 2N-th root of unity, and the N is a size of the input. Narrowing the performing of the preprocessing operation does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15:
Specifies that the performing of the second NTT operation comprises log 2N*(N/2) second NTT units, and the N is a size of the input. Narrowing the performing of the second NTT operation does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16:
Specifies that the PU comprises a modular multiplier. Narrowing the PU with generic modular multiplier does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17:
Specifies that the performing of the Hadamard product operation comprises, based on a modular multiplier, performing the Hadamard product operation. Hadamard product operation is a math operation and does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 8:
Specifies a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the operation method of claim 1. a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is a generic computer component and does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 9:
Specifies that the input is a matrix, and wherein the first element is a column of the matrix. Narrowing the input and first element does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 18:
Specifies that the second NTT architecture, the Hadamard unit, the first NTT architecture and a modular multiplier each perform different math operations. These do not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16:
Specifies that the PU, interconnected to form a ring topology, and wherein each PU is configured with a respective memory chiplet that is not connected to the other Pus. This is a known multi-chiplet architecture and does not add significantly more.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claim 11 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
Claim 11 limitation “a preprocessing unit (PU) configured to perform”;
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 11 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that none of the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation (see Claim Interpretation section). To satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function (see MPEP 2181(III)). For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure includes both the computer and the algorithm that performs the recited functions. (See MPEP 2161). A review of the specification shows that the specification fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 12-19 are also rejected as each depends on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights