DETAILED ACTION
In response to the communication filed on 02/05/2025, responded in following.
On this Office Action, Claims 1-17, consisting of independent claims 1 and 13.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under the 35 USC § 101.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/15/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Priority
The benefit of 63/621,188 filed on 01/16/2024 has been acknowledged.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The following is Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG).
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 PEG”): Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter?
Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method and independent claim 13 is directed to a system. Accordingly, they fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Under Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are evaluated to determine whether “recite” a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites, for example:
Providing a multivariate polynomial of k variables;
Expressing monomials as mathematical expression;
Applying elementary gates to generate multivariate polynomials over a binary field Z2 according to a transformation rule;
Defining first and second encryption mappings
Generating encrypted polynomial sets; and
Evaluating encrypted polynomial sets.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, constitute mathematical calculation, mathematical formulas, and mathematical transformations involving multivariate polynomials, monomials, binary field arithmetic, mappings, and polynomial evaluations.
Such limitations amount to manipulating mathematical expressions and evaluating mathematical relationships to generating result. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concepts, which is one of enumerated groupings of abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG.
Independent claim 13 recite a program for executing the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and a computing architecture comprising a processing unit. Because claim 13 incorporates the computer-implemented method of claim 1, claim 13 likewise recites the same mathematical concepts discussed above.
Thus, the claims 1 and 13 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
Under Prong Two, it is determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Instead, the claim merely implements the recited mathematical concepts in a generic computer environment, as evidence by the recitation of a “computer-implemented method” without any specific technical improvement to computer functionality, processor operation, memory operation, network operation, or encryption hardware.
Similarly, claim 13 merely recites a generic program, a computing architecture, and a processing unit for executing the mathematical concepts recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the claim does not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or another technology,
Effect a transformation of a particular article, or
Apply the abstract idea in any meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a computer.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
2019 PEG: Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Judicial Exception?
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements must amount to “Significantly More” than abstract idea. Therefore, the claims fail to amount to “Significantly More” than the abstract idea.
The additional elements recited in the claims, including the computer implementation, program, computing architecture, and processing unit, merely perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions such as executing instructions, processing data, storing information, and performing calculation.
When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and do not amount to an inventive concept.
Because independent claims 1, and 13 recite an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101.
The respective dependent claims depend from the rejected independent claims and therefore are rejected as well.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUH whose telephone number is (571)270-5524. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/ANDREW SUH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights