DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, applicant states that the claimed invention is directed to a technical solution that enables auction processing while bid price information remains homomorphically encrypted, and this technical feature improves the security and functioning of the electronic apparatus itself and supports the presence of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner notes, however, that the sorting of homomorphically encrypted price information without decrypting the information is a mathematical concept, as homomorphic encryption involves performing mathematical computations on values, and sorting of these mathematically computed values also involves the mathematical operation of comparing and ordering the values. Thus, as mathematical concepts are abstract, this feature is also abstract and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, applicant states that Qiu discloses decrypting data to achieve its numerical ranking, and therefore does not disclose the newly added feature of “sorting, by the processor, the plurality of pieces of price information while the price information remains homomorphically encrypted without decrypting the encrypted messages, using a sorting method corresponding to an auction method for the auction item.” Examiner notes, however, that the data which is decrypted in Qiu is a mixed result based on the performing a mathematical calculation on the homomorphically encrypted price information (See, e.g., Qiu ¶¶ 38-39, 42-43, 80-87). Therefore, this reads on the claim limitation because the information that is decrypted is not the homomorphically encrypted price information.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, claims 8-14 are directed to a method, and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite performing an auction by receiving anonymized bids, sorting them, and notifying a seller about the bid and buyer information, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving a homomorphic encrypted message including homomorphic encrypted price information for an auction item from each of a plurality of other [users],” “sorting the plurality of pieces of price information while the price information remains homomorphically encrypted without decrypting the encrypted messages, using a sorting method corresponding to an auction method for the auction item,” and “notifying . . . a seller of price information corresponding to a preset rank among the sorted price information and buyer information corresponding to the price information,” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)) because the claimed steps describes a process for performing an auction in which price information has been anonymized through the use of a mathematical operation, where performing the auction involves receiving the anonymized price information, sorting the price information without decrypting it, and notifying a seller of winning bid’s price and buyer information, which is a commercial or legal interaction. Additionally, the sorting of price information without decrypting it recited in the claims involves a mathematical relationship, and is thus directed to a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of an electronic apparatus comprising a communicator, a memory configured to store at least one instruction, and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, electronic apparatuses, and a computer-readable recording medium including a program to perform the steps merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “receiving a homomorphic encrypted message including homomorphic encrypted price information for an auction item from each of a plurality of other [users],” “sorting the plurality of pieces of price information while the price information remains homomorphically encrypted without decrypting the encrypted messages, using a sorting method corresponding to an auction method for the auction item,” and “notifying . . . a seller of price information corresponding to a preset rank among the sorted price information and buyer information corresponding to the price information.” Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are 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, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of using an electronic apparatus comprising a communicator, a memory configured to store at least one instruction, and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, electronic apparatuses, and a computer-readable recording medium including a program to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of performing an auction by receiving anonymized bids, sorting them, and notifying a seller about the bid and buyer information. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “receiving a homomorphic encrypted message including homomorphic encrypted price information for an auction item from each of a plurality of other [users],” “sorting the plurality of pieces of price information while the price information remains homomorphically encrypted without decrypting the encrypted messages, using a sorting method corresponding to an auction method for the auction item,” and “notifying . . . a seller of price information corresponding to a preset rank among the sorted price information and buyer information corresponding to the price information.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of performing an auction by receiving anonymized bids, sorting them, and notifying a seller about the bid and buyer information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 further describe the abstract idea of performing an auction by receiving anonymized bids, sorting them, and notifying a seller about the bid and buyer information. Claims 2-3 and 9-10 describe the price information that is transmitted. The transmission of the information regarding a price further describes the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 11 describe the generation of encrypted auction information. Generating information about the buyer and price is part of the auction process, and thus abstract. The use of encryption also only involves performing mathematical calculations on the data, which is also abstract. Claims 5 and 12 further describe the sorting of the data and notifying of the seller in claims 1 and 8. Thus, these limitations also further describe the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 13 describe performing a homomorphic operation and transmitting the result, and claims 7 and 14 describe generating a merged encrypted message and performing a homomorphic operation. This only involves performing mathematical operations and outputting the result, which is an abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiu, et al. (US 2023/0291586) (“Qiu”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Qiu discloses an electronic apparatus comprising a communicator, a memory configured to store at least one instruction, and a processor configured to execute the instruction, a computer-readable recording medium including a program for executing a method for processing an encrypted message, and the method for processing an encrypted message in the electronic apparatus, comprising:
receiving, by a communicator, a homomorphic encrypted message including homomorphic encrypted price information for an auction item from each of a plurality of other electronic apparatuses (Qiu ¶¶ 33-38, 67, 72-77, 104-115);
sorting, by the processor, the plurality of pieces of price information while the price information remains homomorphically encrypted without decrypting the encrypted messages, using a sorting method corresponding to an auction method for the auction item (Qiu ¶¶ 42-54, 79-87, 119-127); and
notifying, by the processor, an electronic apparatus corresponding to a seller of price information corresponding to a preset rank among the sorted price information and buyer information corresponding to the price information (Qiu ¶¶ 57, 89, 129).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Qiu discloses transmitting, using the processor via the communicator, a result of a preset homomorphic operation between price information transmitted from a corresponding electronic apparatus and the price information corresponding to the preset rank to each of the plurality of electronic apparatuses (Qiu ¶¶ 39-41, 67-77, 104-115).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Qiu discloses that the preset homomorphic operation is a homomorphic operation that has a value of 1 or 0 upon decryption depending on whether two pieces of homomorphically encrypted numerical information are identical (Qiu ¶¶ 43, 46, 52).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Micali (US 6,026,163).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Qiu does not specifically disclose generating one merged encrypted message, in which one piece of price information is located in one first slot and the buyer information corresponding to the price information is located in a second slot of the same column, using the plurality of received homomorphic encrypted messages.
Micali discloses generating one merged encrypted message, in which one piece of price information is located in one first slot and the buyer information corresponding to the price information is located in a second slot of the same column, using the plurality of received homomorphic encrypted messages (Micali Claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Qiu to include generating one merged encrypted message, in which one piece of price information is located in one first slot and the buyer information corresponding to the price information is located in a second slot of the same column, using the plurality of received homomorphic encrypted messages, as disclosed in Micali, in order to provide security for both the identity of a bidder and the value of their bid (Micali Claim 2).
Statement Regarding Prior Art for Claims 5-7 and 12-17
Regarding claims 5-7 and 12-17, these claims are directed to performing the sorting of the independent claims on a column-by-column basis using information within the first slot of the merged encrypted message, performing a homomorphic encryption operation between each of the third slots of the sorted merged encrypted message and the price information corresponding to the preset rant, where in the situation where there are multiple successful bidders, the merged encrypted message has a plurality of third slots corresponding to the number of successful bidders and each of the plurality of third slots performs the preset homomorphic operation between price information with different ranks.
The closest prior art of Qiu, cited above, discloses the use of homomorphically encrypted price information for bids in an auction and sorting the encrypted bids or price information to determine a winner (Qiu ¶¶ 42-54, 79-87, 119-127).
However, the prior art does not disclose, neither singly nor in combination, the steps performed in the specific manner of claims 5-7 and 12-17, which involve the sorting being performed on a column-by-column basis using information within the first slot of the merged encrypted message, notifying the price information and the buyer information within the column corresponding to the preset rank are notified to the electronic apparatus corresponding to the seller, performing a preset homomorphic operation between each of the third slots of the sorted merged encrypted message and the price information corresponding to the preset rank, transmitting a result of the preset homomorphic operation in the third slot to each of the plurality of electronic apparatuses, wherein the merged encrypted message has price information located in the first slot and third slot, and wherein the merged encrypted message having the plurality of third slots corresponding to the number of successful bidders is generated when the auction method has multiple successful bidders, and in the performing of the preset homomorphic operation, each of the plurality of third slots performs the preset homomorphic operation between price information with different ranks.
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 Mohammad A. Nilforoush whose telephone number is (571)270-5298. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-7pm.
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, John W. Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Mohammad A. Nilforoush/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights