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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 4/30/24.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner reviewed IDS document(s) received on 10/22/24, carefully considering the art cited within the document(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 PEG”) discusses a multi-step analysis which is followed to determine subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. In view of this analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
In the instant case, claim(s) 1-6 are directed to a system and claim(s) 7-9 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The question under step 2A, prong one, is whether the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). The claims are directed towards “mathematical operations such as hashing, encoding, compressing, etc., essentially addressing the mathematical implementation of post-quantum cryptography.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements of the claims such as discussed module are merely to perform the steps or functions cited above to carry out the abstract idea, and implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when analyzed under step 2B of the 2019 PEG. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of functionalities provided by the modules amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computing modules as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of computing modules to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
As described below, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure of the claimed means plus function elements (modules configured to …).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 1 limitation: “module configured to receive output of the binomial sampler and the decompress as input and to perform NTT and INTT operations” is not understood. It is not clear what is the subject of decompressed.
Also, “to output the same through a squeeze function” leaves the reader guessing regarding the exact metes and bounds of the limitation.
Claims 2-6 are rejected based on their dependence.
Claim(s) 1-6 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, although the specification discusses the modules cited in the claim language and figures illustrates the abstract representation some of them, many of the claimed modules (e.g., point-wise multiplication module, rejection sampler, hash sampler, NTT/INTT modules, etc.) are discussed merely repeating the claims rather than clearly disclosing the particular structure enabling the examiner to identify correlation of the specific "means” to the disclosed structure, act or materials carrying out the functionalities of the modules.
Thus, the examiner is unable to interpret the exact scope of claim limitations under and, therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee (KR10-2462395) in view of Saarinen (Saarinen et al., “Ring-LWE Ciphertext Compression and Error Correction: Tools for Lightweight Post-Quantum Cryptography”, ASIA CCS '17: ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ISBN 978-1-4503-4969-7, 4/17) and Cheng (Cheng et al., “Semi-device0independent quantum random number generator with a broadband squeezed stat of light”, Quantum Information 10, article No. 20, 2/24).
Lee discusses (in particular pg. 2-12) the details of Module-LWE based Crypto-Processor System and Method for Post-Quantum Cryptography corresponding to applicant’s system of claims 1, 4 and 6, including various computation (e.g., shift, addition, division, masking, encryption, etc.) including compression and ciphertext in a format for transmission but fails to expressly teach the compression according to a security level and fails to expressly discuss hash sampler generating a pseudo-random number output using a squeeze function. However, such solution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Saarinen (see Abstract as well as discussion regarding Ring-LWE compression techniques) and Cheng (see pg. 1-3). It would have been obvious to include Saarinen’s and Cheng’s teaching into Lee’s invention given the benefit of increased security, performance and scalability.
Claim 7 not only could be read as a subset of claim 1, but it is broad enough to be found in various, less sophisticated, cryptographical schemes. The only difference between Lee as modified and the limitation of claim 7 is the concept of reconfiguring internal submodules by variably selecting one security level from among the plurality of security levels. However, Official Notice is taken that such concept would have been old and well known in various art of cryptographical systems at the time the application was filed, even as simple and commonly utilized SSL encryption, motivating a skilled artisan to implement such solution given the predictable benefit of scalability, security and customization. Moreover, note that such solution would have been obvious because "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." As per claim 8, a skilled in the art would readily appreciate that in Post-Quantum (including Learning With Errors (LWE) Post-Quantum systems (such as taught by Lee)) adjusting parameter k can influence security level of the cryptographic system offering the benefit of customization and claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 and, as a result, is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee in view of Saarinen and Cheng, and further in view of Sideris (Sideris et al., “A Novel Hardware Architecture for Enhancing the Keccak Hash Function in FPGA Devices”, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Western Macedonia, 8/23).
Lee as modified teaches post-quantum cryptograph as discussed above.
Although Lee as modified discusses hashing, the reference(s) fail to address the details of the hash sampler module as required by claim 2. However, in the related art, Sideris discusses such solution (pg. 4-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Sideris’ teaching into Lee as modified invention given the benefit of increased security.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee in view of Saarinen and Cheng, and further in view of Derya (Derya et al., “CoHA-NTT: A Configurable Hardware Accelerator for NTT-based Polynomial Multiplication”, Microprocessors & Microsystems, ISSN:0141-9331, Vol. 89, issue C, 1/22).
While Lee as modified teaches the binomial sampler module receives the output of the hash sampler module in predetermined bit units, converts bit masking according to each security level, generates a secret vector value and an error value using the subtraction operation, and generates a coefficient value according to central polynomial distribution (see pg. 2, 6 and 8, for example), the reference fails to expressly discuss the rejection sampler module receiving output of the hash sampler module in predetermined bit units and passes two random integers less than a modulus value that is a maximum value of a polynomial coefficient.
However, in the related art Derya suggests such solution (see pg. 3-7, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Derya’s teaching into Lee as modified invention given the benefit of efficiency.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee in view of Saarinen and Cheng, and further in view of Putranto (Putranto et al., “Space and Time-Efficient Quantum Multiplier in Post Quantum Cryptography Era”, in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 21848-21862, 3/23).
Lee as modified teaches post-quantum cryptograph as discussed above.
Although Lee as modified teaches the use of RAM, multiplier, adder, etc., the reference fails to address all the details of the limitation of claim 5. However, in the related art Putranto discusses such details (pg. 21852-21589). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to including Putranto’s teaching into Lee as modified invention given the predictable benefit of computational efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433