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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application received on 08/13/2026. In RCE, claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 2-4, and 6-7 have been cancelled. No new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1, and 5 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Applicants’ amendments to claims have been reviewed and amendments have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicants’ remarks considering the amended claims have been reviewed, however amended claims still recite an Abstract Idea. After review, the remarks have been summarized as follows:
The Office Action asserts that the claimed operations can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims require processing an image as a plurality of individual pixels while generating recursive dependencies between neighboring pixels and previously processed pixels across an image. The claimed operations further require generation of intermediate pixel values and recursively updated pixel values during the encryption process. Such image-wide recursive pixel dependency processing is not practically performable in the human mind, particularly for modern medical and military images containing thousands or millions of pixels. The claimed invention therefore recites a computer-based image-processing technique, not a mental process. The Examiner states that the claims do not improve image-encryption technology or computer functionality. The amendments directly address this concern. Specifically, the claims now recite: introduction of inter-pixel dependency across an image, recursive pixel updating based upon previously processed pixels, reduced computational overhead, and reduced correlation between neighboring pixels to improve resistance to statistical attacks. These are not generic computer functions. They are specific improvements to the manner in which image-encryption systems process image data and provide enhanced security characteristics in encrypted images.
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 1, that amended claims do not recite generic functions and there are specific improvements to the manner in image-encryption systems process image data and provide enhanced security characteristics in encrypted images, examiner respectfully disagree. After detailed analysis, the amended claim language still recites an Abstract Idea, specifically under the mathematical concepts and mental processes/methods of organizing human activity categories.
Following is the breakdown of why the amended claims still recite an Abstract Idea:
1. Core Mathematical Concept
The Issue: The claim explicitly bases its entire method on the "Collatz Conjecture," which is a famous, unresolved mathematical hypothesis.
Why it's abstract: Patent law does not allow individuals to monopolize mathematical formulas, algorithms, or relationships. Transforming data using a mathematical sequence—even for encryption—is considered a pure mathematical concept.
2. Lack of Specific Technical Implementation (The "How")
The Issue: The claim uses broad, functional language to describe the encryption. It mentions "applying a pixel-to-pixel encryption hash function" and "a sequence of transformations," but it does not disclose the specific, step-by-step technical algorithm or hardware constraints to achieve this.
Why it's abstract: The amended language claims the result (reducing computational overhead, reducing pixel correlation) rather than a specific technical solution to a problem. Under standard patent framework (like the Alice/Mayo test), simply saying a mathematical formula is applied via standard software operations is not enough to make it patent eligible.
3. Contradictory/Broad Language
The Issue: The final clause states, "wherein the reconstructing the input image outputs an encrypted image."
Why it's abstract/vague: Reconstructing an input image should logically output the original image, not an encrypted one. This structural ambiguity makes the claim look like a generic data-manipulation loop rather than a concrete, practical application. The claim language describes the result of the algorithm ("reduces computational overhead", "reduces the correlation") rather than the specific physical or technological mechanism achieving it. The components listed are purely conventional generic hardware ("a server; a processor; and a memory").
If this specific sequence of recursive dependency (using the Collatz Conjecture) is unconventional and solves a specific problem in image processing that conventional encryption could not solve, it may constitute an inventive concept. However, it is recommended to amend the claims to recite how the Collatz Conjecture specifically calculates these dependencies, rather than just stating that it does.
In order to make the claims patent-eligible, Applicant is advised to further amend the claims to recite how the Collatz Conjecture specifically calculates these dependencies rather than reciting the result of the algorithm (i.e., "reduces computational overhead", "reduces the correlation").
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, and 5 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” and Mental process / Data Manipulation.
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 claim explicitly recites a mathematical algorithm and a method of organizing human activity/mental processes.
Mathematical Concept: The claim explicitly builds its cryptographic algorithm on the Collatz Conjecture (a mathematical sequence) and relies on "a sequence of transformations," "intermediate pixel values," and "recursively updated pixel values." Under Prong 1, mathematical formulas, algorithms, and relations are considered abstract ideas.
Mental Process / Data Manipulation: Performing encryption on a pixel-by-pixel basis by updating a value based on a dependency (neighboring or prior pixels) can be characterized as manipulating data using mathematical relationships.
The claims recite the Abstract Idea using Mathematical concept and Mental process by applying 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 the 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."
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 like 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 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 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 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 and decryption 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.
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
Prosecution Insights