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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
The objections of claims 5 and 15 are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment and applicant’s remarks.
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 1-3, 4-5, 9, 11-13 and 15 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 01/21/2026 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 “the claims 1 and 11, read as a whole, recite features that integrate a practical solution, namely, improving the performance of a homomorphic encryption scheme.”, examiner respectively points out that the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) established that while claims "must be read in view of the specification," courts must avoid "reading a limitation from the specification into the claim" absent express definition (lexicography) or disavowal. Further, 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.
The arguments regarding to 35 USC § 103 rejection is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawal in view of amendment and applicant’s remarks.
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 receiving an input matrix comprising elements that comprise coefficients of a polynomial of a ciphertext; 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 a preprocessing unit (PU), first number-theoretic transform (NTT) architecture, a second NTT architecture and a Hadamard unit 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.” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, while the claim recites “single delayed feedback (SDF)-NTT architecture”, the specification lacks a detailed description of corresponding structure, algorithms, or sufficient detail showing how the structure are implemented and interoperate. As established in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161,5 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the specification must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Merely stating that machine learning is used, without further elaboration, does not satisfy this requirement.
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 3 and 13 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, key limitation, “single delayed feedback (SDF)-NTT architecture” is presented purely as functional labels with no objective boundaries, leaving readers unable to determine where infringement begins or ends. Because a person having ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain the claim scope with reasonable certainty, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112(b).
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 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