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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. For example, paragraphs 0003, 0005, and 0038 contain references to websites comprising hyperlinks.
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 17-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the limitation “representing … the input data represented by at least one input polynomial”, however it’s unclear how to performing a “representing” step on input data which is already “represented by at least one input polynomial”. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant either provide a statement clarifying the above unclear limitation or amend the claim 17 in order to overcome this rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “receiving … encrypted data represented by at least one input polynomial…”, “transforming … the at least one input polynomial”, “transforming … the multi-spiral representations of the at least one input polynomial…”, “performing … at least one mathematical operation …”, “transforming… the output unique-spiral representation…”, and “transforming … the output multi-spiral representation to an output polynomial having coefficients…”, each being directed towards a mental process of performing a mathematical calculation. Claim 17 recites “receiving … input data…”, “representing … the input data represented by at least one input polynomial…”, transforming … the at least one input polynomial”, transforming … the corresponding multi-spiral representations …”, “performing … at least one mathematical operation …”, “transforming… the output unique-spiral representation…”, “transforming … the output multi-spiral representation to an output polynomial having coefficients…”, and “converting … the output polynomial…”, each being directed towards a mental process of performing a mathematical calculation. Claim 20 recites “transforming … at least one input polynomial…”, “transforming … the corresponding multi-spiral representations of the data to corresponding unique-spiral representations…”, “performing … at least one mathematical operation…”, “transforming … the output unique-spiral representation…”, and “transforming … the output multi-spiral representation to an output polynomial having coefficients” , each being directed towards a mental process of performing a mathematical calculation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 17, and 20 fail to recite any further language that integrates the above mathematical steps in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea itself. Specifically, claims 1, 17, and 20 do not recite any additional limitations that reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to a specific technology or technical field. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims 1, 17, and 20 recite generic computer components (e.g., “a memory” and “at least one processor”) that when considered individually or in combination with the above abstract idea, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Specifically, the recitations of “a memory” and “at least one processor” are equivalent to components that are well-known computer functions (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP AM., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The examiner also takes Official Notice regarding the “a memory” and “at least one processor” as being well-known and convention in the computer arts.
The dependent claims, which further limit claims 1 and 17, also fail to recite any further limitations that would either integrate the above abstract idea into a practical application and also fail to recite anything which would constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Thus, these claims are also rejected for the same reasons as applied to respective claims 1 and 17 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Prothero” (US 8861327).
“Prothero II” (US 2019/0013974).
“Yasuda” (US 2015/0046708).
“Yasuda II” (EP 3035851 A1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, Ashok Patel can be reached on 571-272-3972. 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.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights