DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are pending in this 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 .
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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception of a mathematical computation without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no mention of how the computations are being applied to anything other than unencrypted and encrypted data. Examiner notes and appreciates the inclusion of a statement of purpose in the preamble in the new amendments “for data protection in cryptography.” However, this does not fully recite an integrated practical application. A practical application may include reciting a real-world communication or transaction along with any relevant context and integrate the mathematical calculations described in the claims into this communication or transaction.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. There isn’t a definition for a “basic transformation” in the specification which makes it unclear what exactly is being claimed. Examiner suggests including some explanatory language in the claims.
As per claim 1, Examiner was unable to locate a specific definition for “basic transformation” in the specification. This makes it unclear what exactly is used to construct the constant coefficient matrix. Examiner appreciates the latest amendments but still doesn’t see a definition for the term.
Examiner Note
If the 101 and 112 rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-12 are resolved, claims 1-7 and 9-12 could potentially be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
As per claim 1, Examiner is still unable to find a definition for “a basic transformation” and the claim language has not been amended to provide any definition. Accordingly, this rejection is maintained.
As per claims 8 and 9, the arguments provided are persuasive and thus these rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As stated in the rejection above, a statement of purpose in the preamble does not suffice as the integration of a practical application in the claims body. The claim is still essentially claiming a judicial exception of pure mathematical calculation. Examiner suggest integrating into the claim body a practical application like a specific type of transaction or communication and integrating how the described calculations are performed on or in relation to this transaction/communication.
Examiner notes that only the 101 rejections remain.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagarajan (WO-2025042437-A1), Nagarajan (US PGPUB No. 2025/0068331), Bao et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0028674), Suresh et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0097630), Elbirt et al. ("Efficient Implementation of Galois Field Fixed Field Constant Multiplication," Third International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG'06), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2006, pp. 172-177, doi: 10.1109/ITNG.2006.59), Greenan et al. ("Optimizing Galois Field Arithmetic for Diverse Processor Architectures and Applications," 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computers and Telecommunication Systems, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2008, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1109/MASCOT.2008.4770564) and Zakharov et al. ("Executing discrete orthogonal transformations based on computations on the Galois field in the FPGA architecture," 2016 International Siberian Conference on Control and Communications (SIBCON), Moscow, Russia, 2016, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/SIBCON.2016.7491652) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including linear transformation of block data to produce ciphertext.
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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights