DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 15-28 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses the word “means” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing means to determine… and to determine…” in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“said parameters” in line 13 of claim 15 should read “said one or more parameters”.
“The method for determining as in claim 15” in claims 16-25 should read “The method of claim 15”.
The parentheses in claims 16, 17 should be omitted.
“the integer part” and “the fractional part” in claim 6 lack antecedent basis.
“the group” in claim 17 should read “a group”.
“the least significant bit side” in claim 19 lacks antecedent basis.
“the most significant bit side” in claim 20 lacks antecedent basis.
“the method as in claim 15” in claim 26 should read “the method of claim 15”.
“said one or more parameters” in line 11 of claim 27 and “said parameters” in line 12 of claim 27 lack antecedent basis.
“said representation” in lines 11 and 13 of claim 27 lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 15-28 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.
Claim 15 recites “the subtasks” in line 7 and “said subtasks” in line 9. However, it’s unclear whether these subtasks refer to (a) “one or more subtasks” in line 5, (b) both “a subtask of said operation” in line 6 and “a subsequent subtask” in line 7, or (c) some other subtasks. Claims that depend on claim 15 also have this issue. For examination purposes, interpretation (b) has been adopted.
Claim 15 recites “said one subtask” in lines 10 and 11. However, it’s unclear whether this refers to (a) “one of the subtasks” in line 7, (b) “one of said subtasks” in line 9, or (c) some other subtask. Claims that depend on claim 15 also have this issue. For examination purposes, interpretation (b) has been adopted.
Claim 24 recites “applied in a fully homomorphic encryption scheme”. However, it’s unclear what is being applied in a fully homomorphic encryption scheme. Is it (a) the method, (b) the operation, (c) the cryptographic application”, (d) one or more subtasks, (e) said representation, or (f) something else. For examination purposes, interpretation (c) has been adopted.
Claim 27 recites “the subtasks” in line 6 and “said subtasks” in line 8. However, it’s unclear whether these subtasks refer to (a) “one or more subtasks” in line 4, (b) both “a subtask of said operation” in line 5 and “a subsequent subtask” in line 6, or (c) some other subtasks. Claim 28 also has this issue. For examination purposes, interpretation (b) has been adopted.
Claim 27 recites “said one subtask” in lines 9 and 10. However, it’s unclear whether this refers to (a) “one of the subtasks” in line 6, (b) “one of said subtasks” in line 8, or (c) some other subtask. Claim 28 also has this issue. For examination purposes, interpretation (b) has been adopted.
Claim 28 recites “implemented as a hardware-accelerated computing system”. However, it’s unclear what is being implemented as a hardware-accelerated computing system. Is it (a) the device, (b) processing means, or (c) something else. For examination purposes, interpretation (b) has been adopted.
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 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites deriving one or more parameters determining a representation of a variable used when performing an operation on an input operand in a cryptographic application, wherein a resulting output of performing said operation meets one or more predefined constraints, said operation comprising one or more subtasks, wherein a subtask of said operation outputs said variable as an input for a subsequent subtask or as an output of the operation and wherein at least one of the subtasks receives said input operand, determining one or more properties of said variable output by one of said subtasks based on a model of noise sources stemming from said one subtask and/or on at least one property of an input to said one subtask, said one or more properties of said variable being characterized by said one or more parameters, determining said representation of said variable by fixing at least one of said parameters at a value so that said one or more properties meet said one or more predefined constraints, and applying said representation of said variable in an implementation of said operation in said cryptographic application.
The limitation of deriving one or more parameters determining a representation of a variable used when performing an operation on an input operand in a cryptographic application, wherein a resulting output of performing said operation meets one or more predefined constraints, said operation comprising one or more subtasks, wherein a subtask of said operation outputs said variable as an input for a subsequent subtask or as an output of the operation and wherein at least one of the subtasks receives said input operand as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “by means of a device comprising processing means”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by means of a device comprising processing means” language, “deriving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually deriving one or more parameters determining a representation of a variable used when performing an operation on an input operand in a cryptographic application, wherein a resulting output of performing said operation meets one or more predefined constraints, said operation comprising one or more subtasks, wherein a subtask of said operation outputs said variable as an input for a subsequent subtask or as an output of the operation and wherein at least one of the subtasks receives said input operand.
The limitation of determining one or more properties of said variable output by one of said subtasks based on a model of noise sources stemming from said one subtask and/or on at least one property of an input to said one subtask, said one or more properties of said variable being characterized by said one or more parameters as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining one or more properties of said variable output by one of said subtasks based on a model of noise sources stemming from said one subtask and/or on at least one property of an input to said one subtask, said one or more properties of said variable being characterized by said one or more parameters.
The limitation of determining said representation of said variable by fixing at least one of said parameters at a value so that said one or more properties meet said one or more predefined constraints as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually computing said representation of said variable by fixing at least one of said parameters at a value so that said one or more properties meet said one or more predefined constraints.
The limitation of applying said representation of said variable in an implementation of said operation in said cryptographic application as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “applying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using said representation of said variable in an implementation of said operation in said cryptographic application (e.g. a cryptographic procedure, process, algorithm or function).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a device comprising processing means to perform the deriving step. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Thus, the claimed elements, either individually, or in the ordered combination do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-26 further clarify the concept recited in claim 15 however this clarification still falls under the concept recited in claim 15 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 16-26 are rejected for at least the reason stated above with respect to claim 15.
Claim 27 although not using the exact claim language, contains similar elements as recited in claim 15 and is also rejected for similar reasons. Dependent claim 28 further clarifies the concept recited in claim 27 however this clarification still falls under the concept recited in claim 27 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claim 28 is rejected for at least the reasons stated above with respect to claim 27.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, software per se. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. In this case, the claim is drawn to a program (software per se) and not a program in combination with (stored on) a non-transitory computer storage medium. Applicant can overcome this rejection by reciting “A program stored on a non-transitory computer storage medium…”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liao (US 20220385447) discloses systems and memory devices are disclosed for fully homomorphic encryption (FHE). The system may include a processing unit including: a data memory for storing coefficients for a polynomial; a twiddle factor (TF) memory for storing TF values associated with the polynomial; a TF register connected to the TF memory; a plurality of first registers connected to the data memory; a plurality of first MUXs connected to the first registers; a plurality of second registers connected to the plurality of first MUXs; a plurality of Butterfly (BF) cores connected to the plurality of the second registers and the TF register; wherein each of the plurality of BF cores is configured to, responsive to a control signal, perform a Butterfly Transform (BFT) operation based on two coefficients from the data memory and a TF value from the TF memory.
Greenberg (US 20230306237) discloses identifying and avoiding an overflow event while performing machine learning inference operations with homomorphic encryption. Prior to a first run of a machine learning inference operation, a first overflow event is created in order to determine the values that are achieved values. These values are compared to a set of user selected homomorphic encryption libraries in order to determine which parameters of the machine learning inference operation must be adjusted in order to avoid future overflow events during subsequent runs of the machine learning inference operation.
Sarpatwar (US 20210397988) discloses a method, apparatus and computer program product to create a full homomorphic encryption (FHE)-friendly machine learning model. The approach herein leverages a knowledge distillation framework wherein the FHE-friendly (student) ML model closely mimics the predictions of a more complex (teacher) model, wherein the teacher model is one that, relative to the student model, is more complex and that is pre-trained on large datasets. In the approach herein, the distillation framework uses the more complex teacher model to facilitate training of the FHE-friendly model, but using synthetically-generated training data in lieu of the original datasets used to train the teacher.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GELAGAY SHEWAYE 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 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). 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.
/TRONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights