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 .
Priority
The present application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/538,136 filed Sep. 13, 2023, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 was filed along with the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 09/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 09/06/2024. In the application, claims 1-7 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and not found to be in compliance. See Office Action for details.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and not found to be in compliance. See Office Action for details.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, and 5 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a system” and “a method” being performed by a processor of a server and method claim.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, and 5 recite the abstract idea which falls into the category of Mathematical concepts - “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”.
These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The limitations recite Abstract Idea as follows:
“A system for image encryption based on the Collatz Conjecture comprising:
a server;
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to
apply a cryptographic algorithm based on the Collatz Conjecture.” (Claim 1) and
“A method for image encryption based on the Collatz Conjecture comprising:
receiving an image;
applying a pixel-to-pixel encryption hash function;
applying a pixel-to-pixel decryption hash function; and
reconstructing the image” (Claim 5).
In above steps, the abstract idea is to apply a cryptographic algorithm based on the Collatz Conjecture and receiving an image; applying a pixel-to-pixel encryption hash function; applying a pixel-to-pixel decryption hash function; and reconstructing the image. These steps are the actions that can be performed in a human mind using pen and paper.
This type of abstract idea is related to performing mathematical operations as defined by the claimed steps listed above. As such, the claims fall under at least the category of “an idea of itself” and “mathematical relations / formulas”. The phrase “an idea of itself is used to describe an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper." Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, data is simply being generated/manipulated by using mathematical operations which was ruled abstract in:
a. Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);
b. A mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams).
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than performing cryptographic operations on data using defined mathematical formula comprised in the algorithm as described in the claims that can be performed mentally.
The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts. For example, a mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams). While the specific facts of the case differ from these cases, the claims are still directed to receiving data and determining if the data is in plaintext format or not and if it is, then encrypt the data which is a mental process performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Further, each and every step can be performed mentally and with pen and paper. The process of cryptographic operations using Collatz Conjecture on data using defined mathematical formula comprised in the algorithm as described in the claims are widely used.
Step 2A (prong 2) Identifying an integrated practical application
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the 101 analyses, claims recite abstract idea of performing cryptographic operations of algorithm on a data using Collatz Conjecture is an abstract idea of mental process of performing encryption which is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Instant disclosure mentions that the steps are performed through a system for image encryption based on the Collatz Conjecture including a server, a processor, and a memory storing instructions, which are executed by the processor, cause the processor to apply a cryptographic algorithm based on the Collatz Conjecture (instant disclosure [0006]).
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)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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. Therefore, the Claims do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims.
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). Rather, the second step requires determining whether additional substantive limitations narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself. Another way of stating the test is whether the claim language provides “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The considerations are whether the claim includes:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application;
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a generic device, modules when taken in combination with the functional elements claims are directed to system and method for performing mathematical calculations, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a general purpose device). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the Individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions which is encryption of data items. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, which fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers – in our common day-to-day interactions. Note: Applicant’s disclosure states a generic computer circuit is used to implement the security method of example embodiments (Instant disclosure ¶0006).
Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods / devices lack an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mental activity, e.g., cipher algorithm.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-7 have been analyzed to determine if they recite any element or action which results in integrating the model into a practical application however, dependent claims are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection of the independent claims because the claims merely recite performing homomorphic encryption without integrating the model into a practical application.
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the depiction of Figures 1 through 7 are blurry and fail to show clearly and legibly. For instance, paragraph [0028], [0032-0035], [0050], [0051], [0055], [0057] [0064], [0067-0068-0069-0070-0071-0072-0073-0074-0075] shows mathematical formulas in illustrative format. Therefore, it is required that clear and legible figures are submitted in the next official response. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification (including claims), and any amendments for applications, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, must have text written plainly and legibly either by a typewriter or machine printer in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) in portrait orientation and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition; and only a single column of text. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
The application papers are objected to because Applicant’s submitted mathematical formulas in the specification are not clear and legible to understand. For instance, paragraph [0028], [0032-0035], [0050], [0051], [0055], [0057] [0064], [0067-0068-0069-0070-0071-0072-0073-0074-0075] shows mathematical formulas in illustrative format.
As per MPEP 608.01 VI. ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE SPECIFICATION discloses that Graphical illustrations, diagrammatic views, flowcharts, and diagrams in the descriptive portion of the specification do not come within the purview of 37 CFR 1.58(a), which permits tables, chemical and mathematical formulas in the specification in lieu of drawings. The examiner should object to such descriptive illustrations in the specification and request drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.81 when an application contains graphs, drawings, or flow charts in the specification.
A legible substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) and 1.125 is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 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.
Claims 3, and 6, recite mathematical formulas with different variables with no clear references to the variable. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these variables in the claim. Additionally, claims 3, and 6 recite language that is generally narrative in form and replete with indefinite language.
Furthermore, claims 4, and 7 mentions reference to figures in the specification without any description in the claim. As per MPEP 2173.05(s), where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parteFressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted). The mere mentioning and referencing of figures without any description in claims 4, and 7 render the claims indefinite.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ciet et al., (US20130108038A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ciet discloses:
A system for image encryption based on the Collatz Conjecture comprising:
a server; a processor; and a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (FIG. 1; [0024-0025])
apply a cryptographic algorithm based on the Collatz Conjecture ([0008] Cryptography generally includes several different components, such as signature, encryption, and hashing. This disclosure is directed to hashing. Specifically, the hashing approaches set forth herein are based on the Collatz conjecture; [0031] Having disclosed some components of a computing system, the disclosure now returns to a discussion of hashing and related operations based on the Collatz conjecture. The variations set forth herein illustrate different ways to create a hash function based on the Collatz conjecture).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature titled “A Novel Image Encryption Scheme Based on Collatz Conjecture” authored by Ballesteros et al.
Regarding claim 5, Ballesteros discloses:
A method for image encryption based on the Collatz Conjecture comprising:
receiving an image; applying a pixel-to-pixel encryption hash function; applying a pixel-to-pixel decryption hash function; and reconstructing the image (Abstract; Page # 4, section 2.4 Disorder Scrambling; Page # 5, Section 3. The Proposed Scheme; Page # 7-8; 3.2. Image Recovering discloses encryption and decryption of pixels in the image).
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.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciet et al., (US20130108038A1) in view of Non-Patent Literature titled “A Novel Image Encryption Scheme Based on Collatz Conjecture” authored by Ballesteros et al.
Regarding claim 2, Ciet discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic algorithm is Collatz conjecture ([0008] & [0031]).
Ciet fails to disclose:
the cryptographic algorithm includes a pixel-to-pixel encryption and a pixel-to-pixel decryption phase.
However, Ballesteros discloses:
the cryptographic algorithm includes a pixel-to-pixel encryption and a pixel-to-pixel decryption phase (Page # 4, section 2.4 Disorder Scrambling; Page # 5, Section 3. The Proposed Scheme; Page # 7-8; 3.2. Image Recovering discloses encryption and decryption of pixels in the image).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hash-based system of Collatz conjecture and include image encryption and decryption based on pixel-to-pixel basis, as disclosed by Ballesteros.
The motivation to combine the teachings is to achieve image encryption and decryption based on pixel-to-pixel basis is to protect content privacy by scrambling and diffusion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, and 6-7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
However, identified claims would still be rejected under 35 USC § 101 reciting Abstract Idea which falls into the category of Mathematical concepts - “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491 12/09/2025