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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Drawing submitted on 01/29/2025 has been accepted.
Specification
The specification submitted on 01/29/2025 has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 15 recites “this central interval” should be “the central interval”.
Claim 8 line 3 recites “i.e. f(µ)” should be “f(µ)”.
claim 13 recites “being also configured “ should be “being configured”.
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 1-15 are 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.
In the preamble and limitation of claim 1, the formula symbol att[0], π, vi, ui, gϵ and q lacks description what each one of them stands for or represents. Therefore claim 1 is rendered infinite.
In claim 3, in Fm(C[m]), there is lack of description what m represents or stands for in the formula. Therefore, claim 3 is rendered indefinite.
Claims 9 and 10 present two limitations or method steps in alternative with connector “or” and the first limitation is according to claim 7 and the second limitation has no dependency in any previous claims rendering claims 9 and 10 with the second limitation as a single method claim and based on this claims 9 and 10 are rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "determining the positive or negative character” in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "belonging to the discrete torus” in line 4.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the different dilated encrypted messages” in line 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “applying the Heaviside function” in line 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "determining the positive or negative character” in line 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the message µ” in line 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the interval” in line 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the maximum of two” in line 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the corresponding encrypted messages” in line 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the quantity” in line 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “applying the Heaviside function” in line 5.
Claim 9: recites the limitation “the encrypted version” in line 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the minimum of two” in line 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the corresponding encrypted messages” in line 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the quantity” in line 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “applying the Heaviside function” in line 5.
Claim 10: recites the limitation “the encrypted version” in line 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the quantity” in line 4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the form of an encrypted” in line 4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "belonging to the discrete torus” in line 5.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the form of an encrypted” in line 3.
There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claims.
Dependent claims 2-15, directly or indirectly failed to remedy deficiencies in their respective independent claims and therefore claims 1-15 are rendered indefinite.
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 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite “homomorphically determining a positive or negative character a message µ from a corresponding encrypted message c;
PNG
media_image1.png
64
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a scaling step of determining a dilated encrypted message according to formula
PNG
media_image2.png
60
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a merging step of:
PNG
media_image3.png
58
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 recites decomposing the function f and calculating the quantity of
PNG
media_image4.png
64
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 recite homomorphically determining the maximum of two messages by applying Heaviside function H (µa -µb). Maxh=H.Ca + (1-h).Cb” and Minh=hCb + (1-h).Ca
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are “mathematical concepts”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Statutory Categories
Does the claims fall within a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter? YES
Claims 1-12 and 15 fall within at least one of the statutory category of inventions, because Claims 1 is directed to a method reciting a scaling step of determining a dilated encrypted message and a merging step of calculating the sum and quantity.
Step 2A, Prong one: Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Does the claim recite a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (Mathematical concepts, Organization of Human Activity, or Mental Process)? YES
Claims 1-10 and 12 recite the following main limitations:
homomorphically determining a positive or negative character a message µ from a corresponding encrypted message c;
PNG
media_image1.png
64
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a dilated encrypted message according to formula
PNG
media_image2.png
60
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a merging step of by
PNG
media_image3.png
58
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
decomposing the function f and calculating the quantity of
PNG
media_image4.png
64
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
homomorphically determining the maximum of two messages by applying Heaviside function H (µa -µb). Maxh=H.Ca + (1-h).Cb”. and Minh=hCb + (1-h).Ca
Homomorphically determining a positive or negative character a message µ, scaling by determining a dilated encrypted message, merging by calculating sum and quantity, decomposing the function f are all using the above identified mathematical functions and equations and therefore the limitations falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Does the claim recite addition elements that integrate or an improvement to a computer functionality? NO
Claims 10 and 15 further recite additional limitations “sorting a database”. However, sorting a database and writing at a determined location is recited at a high level of generality and therefore they provide insignificant extra-solution activity. There is no integration or provision of security, authentication, protection of a data by the additional limitations to enhance homomorphic encryption techniques nor targeted to address a practical problem.
Step 2B: Inventive concept (Significantly more )
Does the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself? NO.
The claims do not clearly identify and recite what to improve and describe how to improve a homomorphically encrypted message.
Dependent/Independent claims 2-12, and 15 failed to remedy deficiencies of their respective independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 13-14 are directed to a cryptographic processing server and a cryptographic system respectively. Claim 13 is directed to comprise a communication module and a calculation module. Claim 14 is directed to comprise a cryptographic processing server. To a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), a communication module, a calculation module and a cryptographic processing server are not necessarily a hardware or a processing device such as a microprocessor or circuit chip. The may be software nodules or signals (See application [0079]. Therefore, claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowable over prior arts of record. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowability:
After consideration of the applicant’s correspondence filed on January 29, 2025 through examination of the application, claims, and conducted search, the pertinent prior arts of record, either taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application when taken as a whole and therefore claims 1-15 having the following features would be in condition for allowance, provided on resolving any outstanding objections or rejections provided in this Office Action Correspondence.
Solving a sign-detection problem by combining two homomorphic techniques together: noise-light dilation and weighted merging of multiple sign evaluations. First, the encrypted message is scaled by multiplying Bezout-related coefficients rather than the ciphertext noise term, so the message is enlarged without substantially enlarging noise. Second, the system evaluates the sign (or staircase function) on the original and one or more dilated ciphertexts, then merges those results with decreasing attenuation coefficients so the first reliable sign result dominates. This produces a robust encrypted sign, which can then implement Heaviside, piecewise functions, max/min, and sorting the encrypted message.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHEVALLIER et al. (US 20240259181 A1) discuses real-valued network operations into fully homomorphic encryption (FHE)-friendly integer operations by scaling each matrix operation with a chosen expansion factor, rounding the matrix to integers, and then adjusting downstream operations to account for the changed magnitude. Nonlinear or otherwise unsupported steps can be implemented with programmable bootstrapping. The expansion factors are then iteratively tuned using an accuracy measure so the encrypted network remains close to the original. For branched networks, the method also enforces compatible scaling across join operations, optionally using correction operations when needed.
SAVRY et al. (US 20170244553 A1) provides solution to problem by inserting a homomorphic masking step before decryption. After an instruction is evaluated in ciphertext space, the result is masked with a separately encrypted random sequence. The masked result is decrypted and re-encrypted, and then the mask is removed again using a homomorphic operation. Because masking occurs before decryption, the instruction output never appears in plaintext.
Loftus et al (US 9306738 B2) is providing a library-based system that automatically configures a leveled fully homomorphic encryption scheme according to user input and estimated noise growth. The library selects parameters such as modulus, polynomial degree, key distributions, and word size so encrypted computations can be performed efficiently and remain correct. It also encodes data into smaller pieces, computes on those pieces in parallel, and recombines results to reduce ciphertext size and improve throughput. The system tracks noise and can set bounds or issue errors when the planned computation would exceed reliable limits.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TECHANE GERGISO whose telephone number is (571)272-3784. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:30pm.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/TECHANE GERGISO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights