CTNF 18/979,286 CTNF 89715 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the application 18/979,286 filed on December 12 th , 2024. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claims 1-10 were canceled. Claim 11-30 have been added. Claims 11-30 are pending and herein considered. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 12/12/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to Application No. 10-2021-0115254, the signed copy having been filed on August 31 nd , 2021. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claims 11, 19 and 27 ; claims 11, 19 and 27 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more. The claims reciting the limitations “divid[ing] a plain text into a first plain block, a second plain block, a third plain block, and a fourth plain block,” “provid[ing] the first plain block, the second plain block, the third plain block, and the fourth plain block to a first encryption/decryption core and a second encryption/decryption core in an input electrical circuit,” “encrypt[ing] the first plain block in the first encryption/decryption core to generate a first cipher block,” “encrypt[ing] the second plain block in the second encryption/decryption core in synchronization with the first encryption/decryption core to generate a second cipher block,” “encrypt[ing] the third plain block in the first encryption/decryption core to generate a third cipher block,” “encrypt[ing] the fourth plain block in the second encryption/decryption core in synchronization with the first encryption/decryption core to generate a fourth cipher block,” “divid[ing] the fourth cipher block into a fourth cipher block head and a fourth cipher block tail,” “add[ing] the fourth cipher block tail and a plain text tail to generate a Cipher Text Stealing (CTS) plain block in a CTS control electrical circuit,” “encrypt[ing] the CTS plain block into a CTS cipher block in a CTS core” and “outputt[ing] a first cipher text which is generated by adding the first cipher block, the second cipher block, the third cipher block, the fourth cipher block head and the CTS cipher block in an output electrical circuit” are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e, a memory device) . However, said additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of dividing/providing/encrypting/encrypting/encrypting/encrypting/dividing/adding/encrypting/outputting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional element, said element taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. Outputting a first cipher text which is generated by adding the first cipher block, the second cipher block, the third cipher block, the fourth cipher block head and the CTS cipher block in an output electrical circuit is conventional, well know routing in view of Berkeeimer memo here. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claims 12-18, 20-26 & 28-30 ; claims 12-18, 20-26 & 28-30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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. /KHOI V LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436 Application/Control Number: 18/979,286 Page 2 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 18/979,286 Page 3 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 18/979,286 Page 4 Art Unit: 2436 Application/Control Number: 18/979,286 Page 5 Art Unit: 2436
Prosecution Insights