Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 6/12/2026. Claims 1, 5, 12, 14, 18, 22, 24, 27, 32, 34, 37, 40 and 43 were amended. Claim 8 was canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-43 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026, to claim(s) 5 correcting the claim to recite “are selected” is sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 5 as filed in (2) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026, to claim(s) 18 correcting the claim to recite a list instead of an equation is sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 18 as filed in (2) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026, to claim(s) 24, 34 and 37 correcting the claim to omit extra spaces in the word “method” is sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 24, 34 and 37 as filed in (2) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026, to claim(s) 40 correcting the claim to omit a duplicate “a” is sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 40 as filed in (2) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 43 are sufficient to overcome the interpretation of the claim under 112f in the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the interpretation under 112, sixth paragraph, and associated rejection of claim(s) 43 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (19) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026, to claim(s) 1, 32 and 37 correcting the claim to recite a practical application are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the related rejection of claim(s) 1-43 under 101, as filed in (6) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 5 correcting the claim to recite dependency on claim 4 are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 5 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (13) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 12 correcting the claim to recite dependency on claim 4 are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 12 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (14) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 14 correcting the claim to recite “a cypher text” are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 14 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (15) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 22 correcting the claim to omit terms previously added in claim 4 are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 22 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (16) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 22, 24, 27 and 34 correcting the claim to reference the method of the independent claim are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 22, 24, 27 and 34 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (17) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/12/2026¸ to claim(s) 37 correcting the claim to omit multiple recitations of “a method” are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 37 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (37) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/12/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13 in Remarks, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to independent claim 1, and dependent claims as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim (NPL “CRT-based Fully Homomorphic Encryption over the Integers), in view of Honorio (US 20210036849 A1) have been fully considered and are found persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
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 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP § 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claim 41 recites a “A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to carry out the method”. Claim 42 recites “A computer-readable storge medium or a data carrier signal carrying the computer program of claim 41” Applicant’s Specification does not explicitly define “computer program” as hardware. Notably absent from Applicant’s Specification is any definition of the computer readable storage medium that explicitly limits it to hardware. "While the recitation ‘non-transitory’ is a viable option for overcoming the presumption that those media encompass signals or carrier waves, merely indicating that such media are ’physical’ or ‘tangible’ will not overcome such presumption” (In re Mewherter, Appeal No. 2012-007692, p. 14 (BPAI 2013) (precedential) (quoting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101 (August 2012 Update) (pp. 11-14), available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf). Pending claims are interpreted as broadly as their claims reasonably allow. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a recording medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of recording medium, particularly when the specification is silent (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1 01 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim drawn to such a recording medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987).
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.
Claims 11 and 40 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “The method of claim 8”, however, claim 8 has been canceled. Claim 40 depends from claim 11, inheriting the same deficiency.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Gentry (US 20120039473 A1) which teaches methods and systems to encrypt/decrypt a data message using Geometric Algebra and Hensel encoding.
Puiggali (US 20120144186 A1) which teaches a method for the verification of the correct decryption of a set of encrypted messages, characterized by using an encryption algorithm with homomorphic properties to encrypt the messages.
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 extension fee 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 BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights