DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-20, while rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or under 35 U.S.C. 103 and would be allowable if they are amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “verifier” and “prover” in claims 1-2, 5-7, 12-13 and 15-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: " One or more of processors… a main memory 508, such as random-access memory (RAM)” (see paragraphs 0169-0170 of the specification as published (U.S. PGPub 2025/0379739).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the steps or elements recited in claim 17 do not have proper line indentations. A claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. 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 5 and 10 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 5 and 10 recite “prover is possibly dishonest”, which render the claims indefinite. The use of the term “possibly” makes the limitation unclear. It is unclear whether the prover is dishonest or not.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 6 and 17 satisfy the Step 1 because the claims are a process, machine or an article of manufacture.
In Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites “translating the computation into a matrix representation….storing at the prover an input string z, wherein x and Z are related to each other by x∙z = x, wherein denotes matrix-vector multiplication, and a pointwise Hadamard product of (A∙z) and (B∙z) is (C∙z)… representing the constraint as multiple smaller constant-degree constraints, each of the smaller constraints involving a constant number of intermediate vectors…deriving from each of these smaller constraints multiple extended constraints…checking that each of the sampled derived extended constraints is satisfied…outputting a positive result…”. These features are directed to mathematical formulas and performing mathematical calculations based on the formulas. Therefore, claim 1 recites limitations that are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the features recited in claim 1, are steps directed to mathematical formulas and performing mathematical calculations, which are performed in the human mind or by using a pencil and paper. Therefore, claim 1 also falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 6 and 17 recite similar features and are also directed to the abstract idea.
In Step 2A prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because computer processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims also recite the additional steps of “receiving an algorithm representation…”, “receiving a desired soundness error“, and “transmitting to the verifier…”. However, these steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering or transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea. These steps are performed to gather data so that the data can be analyzed or processed by an abstract mental process or mathematical calculations and to merely transmit results after performing the mental process or mathematical calculations. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The additional elements or steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims, as a whole, are directed to mathematical formulas and performing mathematical calculations and fail to integrate the exception into a practical application.
In Step 2B, the claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because computer processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are general purpose computer components, which are well-understood, routine and conventional (see Decasper et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0192474) paragraph 0004 where include conventional components such as a processor, a memory (e.g., RAM)… a network interface, such as a conventional modem), performing the steps recited in the claims and are not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-16 and 18-20, claims 2-5, 7-16 and 18-20 recite the features “the prover transmit…”, “compressed by a succinct vector…”, “intermediate vectors are…”, “prover is possibly…”, “intermediate vectors are performed using Reed-Solomon code…”, “matrices A, B, C, and X…”, and “the protocol has O(log N)…” However, these features are insignificant extra-solution activities (transmitting steps) and are directed to mathematical formulas and performing mathematical calculations. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-16 and 18-20 do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas.
The elements recited in claims 1-20, when considered individually or in an ordered combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPub 2019/0026631, which describes an approach for learning latent representations of data using factorized variational autoencoders;
U.S. Patent No. 11086968, which describes a system for improving performance of tensor-based computations and for minimizing the associated memory usage; and
U.S. Patent No. 10742424, which describes techniques related to trusted identity solution using blockchain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights