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 .
This office action is in reply to amendment filed on July 08, 2026. Claims 1, 3 and 12 have been amended, claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections of claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of amendment to the claims. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C 102 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claims 12-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections applicant argues that, as amended claim 12 provide an improvement to the technology and are directed to statutory subject matter.
Examiner would point out that, representing a Galois Field as equivalent tower field to build a different representation of Galois Field is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., Collection, storage and recognition of data (Smart System) and/or collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying user when misuse is detected (FairWarning) and/or Collecting, transmitting, analyzing & storing data to detect fraudulent and/or invalid clicks based on the time between two requests by the same device or client (Zuili v. Google) ).
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 rejections applicant argues that the prior art on record does not teach a tower field as amended in the claims, “… the reason for this is that tower fields represent a specific mathematical and structural technique that converts the original field into an equivalent tower field, such tower fields …over the subfield.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “tower fields represent a specific mathematical and structural technique that converts the original field into an equivalent tower field, such tower fields …over the subfield”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Schepers et al. [WO 2018/015325 A1] teaches representing a GF(2.sup.8) as an equivalent tower field to build a plurality of different representations of Galois Field (GF) implemented by a compact logic [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The analysis is guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice (Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012)).
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Answer: Yes, Claims 12-20 are directed to a method.
Step 2A: Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, i.e., judicially recognized exceptions (both individually and as an ordered combination)?
Answer: Yes, claim 12 ise directed to the concept of transforming a byte of data from one representation of Galois Field (GF) to an equivalent tower field to build a different representation of Galois Field (GF) (i.e., Collection, storage and recognition of data (Smart System) and/or collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying user when misuse is detected (FairWarning) and/or Collecting, transmitting, analyzing & storing data to detect fraudulent and/or invalid clicks based on the time between two requests by the same device or client (Zuili v. Google) ), and is/are an abstract idea beyond the scope of § 101.
Step2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that when analyzed individually and in ordered combinations amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)?
Answer: No, the claims (both individually and as an ordered combinations) do not transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Claim 12 does not have any additional limitations outside of the abstract limitations of step 2A. Dependent claims 13-20 further clarify the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schepers et al. [WO 2018/015325 A1] (hereinafter Schepers).
As per claim 12, Schepers teaches method comprising:
representing a GF(2.sup.8) as an equivalent tower field to build a plurality of different representations of Galois Field (GF) implemented by a compact logic [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 13, Schepers further teaches the method wherein said equivalent tower field is GF(((2.sup.2).sup.2).sup.2) [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 14, Schepers further teaches the method, wherein said equivalent tower field is GF((2.sup.4).sup.2) [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 15, Schepers further teaches the method wherein said equivalent tower field is represented in a polynomial basis [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 16, Schepers further teaches the method wherein said equivalent tower field is represented in a normal basis [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 17, Schepers further teaches the method which yields at least 432 different representations of said GF [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 18, Schepers further teaches the method comprising computing X.sup.Y by performing a series of: (i) multiplications of two different elements of the field; and (ii) raising an element of the field to a power Z wherein Z is a power of 2, wherein a number of the multiplications (i) is at least two less than a number of ones (1s) in the binary representation of Y [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 19, Schepers further teaches the method wherein Y=254 [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
As per claim 20, Schepers further teaches the method wherein a number of multiplications (i) is 4 or less [page 7, line 22-page 8, line 25].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-11 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 BEEMNET W DADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
BEEMNET W. DADA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
