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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 17, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on August 21, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim interpretation
Intended use/ Result Language:
Regarding claims 1 and 20:
The phrase "so that a sum of the location shares for any one of the voter devices from each of the ballot collection servers represents a unique ballot number for a corresponding voter associated with the one of the voter devices,", is intended use of generating at least one location share for each of the voter devices. This phrase does not affect how the positively recited steps are performed nor does it provide an operational connection to the rest of the claim.
These portions are given no patentable weight because the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen - EFFICIENT SECURE E-VOTING AND ITS APPLICATION IN CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION, “Swearingen” in view of Anderson (US 20070051804 A1), in view of Nair et al. An Improved E-voting scheme using Secret Sharing based Secure Multi-party Computation, “Nair”.
Regarding claims 1 and 8: Swearingen disclose:
Claim 1: An electronic voting system comprising:
Claim 8: An electronic voting method comprising: An electronic voting system comprising (See
wherein:
each of the ballot collection servers is configured to generate, by communicably connecting to each other of the ballot collection servers at least one location share for each of the voter devices so that a sum of the location shares for any one of the voter devices from each of the ballot collection servers represents a unique ballot number for a corresponding voter associated with the one of the voter devices, the unique ballot number being known by no individual one of the ballot collection servers; (See at least Swearingen, p. 35; p. 21, section 5.2; The location anonymization process described in the previous chapter is performed by the two collectors. With our system, voters would only need to log in once they are ready to vote.)
each of the ballot collection servers is further configured to generate, for each of the voter devices, at least two voter shares as random or pseudo-random values; (See at least Swearingen, p.21 section 5.3; the collectors need to generate shares for the voters to protect the confidentiality of their vote. Each collector Cj needs to generate N independent uniform random integers.)
each of the ballot collection servers is further configured to commit its location shares and its voter shares using a commitment protocol of the respective ballot collection
server; (See at least Swearingen, p. 35; p. 39; p. 21; our scheme uses commitments to prevent certain types of attacks by collectors. Our scheme uses homomorphic secret sharing to ensure that individual votes are confidential but that the final tally is visible to everyone. These requirements ensure that collectors cannot take advantage of the modular nature of
Pedersen commitments such that the shares are inconsistent with _j and _0 j.)
each of ballot collection servers is further configured to transmit, to each of the voter devices, the at least one location share and the at least two voter shares generated by the respective one of the ballot collection servers for the respective one of the voter devices; (See at least Swearingen, p. 21 Each collector distributes their generated shares to the voters.)
each of the voter devices is configured to receive from a corresponding voter a selection, as a choice of the corresponding voter, of one option from among a plurality of options in an election, the selection made via a user input of the voter device; (See at least Swearingen, p. 22; Voter i must choose exactly one candidate to vote for. Let ci be the index corresponding to the candidate voter i chooses)-
each of voter devices is further configured to commit the corresponding voter's choice using a commitment protocol of the respective voter device; (See at least Swearingen p. 21; When a collector gives a voter xj,i, they should also give the voter the information needed to verify that the shares match the published Pedersen commitments.)
each of the voter devices is further configured to compute a respective ballot based
on: (See at least Swearingen, p. 22; Once voter i has their selection (ci), location (li), and shares (x1,i, x2,i, x0 1,i, x0 2,i), they can compute their ballot)
the respective committed choice of the respective one of the voter devices, the location shares received by the respective one of the voter devices from the ballot collection servers, and the voter shares received by the respective one of the voter devices from the ballot collection servers; and (See at least Swearingen, p.22; Once voter i has their selection (ci), location (li), and shares (x1,i, x2,i, x0 1,i, x0 2,i), they can compute their ballot. The voter computes vi = 2L−bi and v0 i = 2bi−1, and then can compute their ballot as pi = vi + x1,i + x2,i and p0 i = v0 i + x0 1,i + x0 2,i (note that the ballot consists of both pi and p0 i). pi and p0 i should be published)
each of the voter devices is further configured to transmit the respective ballot via a communication interface of the voter device. (See at least Swearingen, p. 34 Once a voter obtains the needed blind signatures on their vote string, they create and cast their ballot. To cast the ballot, the voter puts it on a blockchain.)
Swearingen disclose the use of voting devices and Secure Computation. (See at least Swearingen, p. 34; p. 36 table 9.1). However, Swearingen does not explicitly disclose at least three voter devices each including a computer processor; at least two ballot collection servers each including a computer processor a communication interface of the voter device and using secure multi-party computation (SMPC).
Anderson, on the other hand teaches at least three voter devices each including a computer processor; at least two ballot collection servers each including a computer processor a communication interface of the voter device. (See at least Anderson, [0016]; [0032] The cast votes are electronically stored in the server of the voting machine (step 104), and are then sent to a central server for processing. The cast votes are electronically stored in the server of the voting machine (step 104); a voting device having a computer interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Anderson’s teachings in order to provide a complete functioning system.
The combination of Swearingen and Johnson does not explicitly disclose; however Nair teaches using secure multi-party computation (SMPC). (See at least Nair, p. 1 Abs. In the proposed system we make use of secret sharing technique and secure multi-party computation(SMC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Nair’s teachings in order to achieve security and reliability. Nair, Abs.
Regarding claims 2 and 9: The combination Swearingen, Anderson and Nair disclose the electronic voting system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8. The combination further disclose; wherein:
each of the ballot collection servers is further configured to receive ballots generated and transmitted by the voter devices; and (See at least Swearingen, p.22; The voter computes vi = 2L−bi and v0 i = 2bi−1, and then can compute their ballot as pi = vi + x1,i + x2,i and p0 i = v0 i + x0 1,i + x0 2,i (note that the ballot consists of both pi and p0 i). pi and p0 i should be published, allowing others to verify the result of the election. The collectors verify that 0 _ pi, p0 i < 3X. (e.g., ballots are received by collectors)
each of the ballot collection servers is further configured to, by communicably connecting to each other of the ballot collection servers and jointly check the validity of each received ballot. (See at least Swearingen, p.22; The collectors verify that 0 _ pi, p0 i < 3X.).
The combination does not explicitly disclose; however, Nair teaches, using secure multi-party computation (SMPC). (See at least Nair, p. 1 Abs. In the proposed system we make use of secret sharing technique and secure multi-party computation(SMC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Nair’s teachings in order to achieve security and reliability. Nair, Abs.
Regarding claims 3 and 10: The combination Swearingen, Anderson and Nair disclose the electronic voting system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8. The combination further disclose;
each of the ballot collection servers is further configured to receive ballots generated and transmitted by the voter devices; and (See at least Swearingen, p. 22; The voter computes vi = 2L−bi and v0 i = 2bi−1, and then can compute their ballot as pi = vi + x1,i + x2,i and p0 i = v0 i + x0 1,i + x0 2,i (note that the ballot consists of both pi and p0 i). pi and p0 i should be published, allowing others to verify the result of the election. The collectors verify that 0 _ pi, p0 i < 3X.)
each of the ballot collection servers is further configured to tally the received ballots at least in part by summing the received ballots to compute a tallied voting vector. (See at least Swearingen, p. 24; Once the final voting vector is checked using the checks above, the election result can be determined by summing the number of votes on the voting vector for each candidate)
Regarding claims 4 and 11: The combination Swearingen, Anderson and Nair disclose the electronic voting system of claim 3 and the method of claim 10. The combination further disclose; wherein at least one of the voter devices is configured to verify that the choice of the corresponding voter of the at least one of the voter devices is represented in the tallied voting vector based on identifying a vote recorded at a location in the tallied voting vector identified by the unique ballot number for the corresponding voter associated with the at least one of the voter devices, the unique ballot number computed by the at least one of the voter devices as a sum of the location shares received by the at least one of the voter devices from the ballot collection servers, Claim 4: and comparing the identified vote to the committed voter's choice. (See at least Swearingen, p.17; p. 24; p. 16; these values, they decrypt them into hr1,0, r1,1, . . . , r1,N−1i. Now note that voter i’s location can be computed as li = r1,i−1+r2,i−1 mod n. The final tallies for each candidate should be published, but all voters and anyone else whom the election result concerns should have access to all ballots so that they can sum them, check the resulting vector, and perform their own tally. …it allows voters to check their location on the vector and ensure that their vote is correct.)
Regarding claims 5 and 12: The combination Swearingen, Anderson and Nair disclose the electronic voting system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8. The combination further disclose; wherein the commitment protocol of the respective ballot collection server and the commitment protocol of the respective voter device is Pedersen commitment. (See at least Swearingen, p. 13 Our scheme uses Pedersen commitments so that collectors can prove that the sums of their shares are a particular value.)
Regarding claims 6 and 13: The combination Swearingen, Anderson and Nair disclose the electronic voting system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8. The combination further disclose; wherein each of the voter devices is configured to compute a respective ballot at least in part by: computing the unique ballot number of the respective one of the voter devices as a sum of the location shares received by the respective one of the voter devices from the ballot collection servers; (See at least Swearingen, p.17; Both collectors pass their shares to the voters, who sum received shares to obtain their location.)
computing a binary voting vector for the respective one of the voter devices as a one-hot or one-cold binary number representative of the choice of the corresponding voter positioned at a location in the binary voting vector designated by the unique ballot number; and (See at least Swearingen, p. 27; if either has zero bits set, it is equal to zero and verification will yield viv0 i = 0 6= 2L−1. If either has more than one bit set, it has a prime factor other than two.)
computing the respective ballot of the respective one of the voter devices as a sum of the binary voting vector for the respective one of the voter devices and a set of voter shares, the set of voter shares including at least one voter share received from each of the ballot collection servers. (See at least Swearingen, p. 22 5.5 Verification).
Regarding claims 7 and 14: The combination Swearingen, Anderson and Nair disclose the electronic voting system of claim 6 and the method of claim 13. The combination further disclose; wherein the set of voter shares is a first set of voter shares including at least a first voter share received from each of the ballot collection servers, and wherein each of the voter devices is further configured to compute a respective reverse ballot at least in part by: (See at least Swearingen, p, 25; Nothing else is sent between C1 and C2, so neither collector gains any meaningful information about any voter’s share unless that voter shares information it receives with one of the collectors.
computing a reverse binary voting vector for the respective one of the voter devices as a bit-reversed permutation of the binary voting vector for the respective one of the voter devices; and (See at least Swariingen, p. 20; Figure 5.1. Visualization of our scheme.)
computing a respective reverse ballot of the respective one of the voter devices as a sum of the reverse binary voting vector for the respective one of the voter devices and a second set of voter shares, the second set of voter shares including at least a second voter share received from each of the ballot collection servers. (See at least Swariingen, p. 23; p. 20; Figure 5.1. Visualization of our scheme. Once the final voting vector is available, further checks can be performed to gain confidence in its correctness. Note that summing the p0 i values and subtracting _01 and _02 should yield a vector that is the reverse of the vector computed by summing the pi values and subtracting _1 and _2. Anyone can check that these two vectors are indeed reverse one another.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rashid Sheikh - Formally, in SMC the parties P1, P2, …, Pk want to compute some common function f(x1, x2,…, xk ) of inputs x1, x2,…, xk such that a party Pi can know only its own input xi and the value of the function f . Sheikh, 1 introduction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights