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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-18 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of KR10-2024-0071750 and KR10-2025-0066970 filed 5/31/2024 and 5/22/2025 respectively.
Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to math without significantly more. Claim 1 is representative. The claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate a transmission key based on a second modulus of an extended ring that is larger than a first modulus of a subring,” which calls for mathematical action. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not claim the use of the transmission key to improve a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional features of a memory and communication interface are conventional computer hardware that is not significantly more, and the additional feature of using the interface to transmit the key is insignificant post-solution activity that is the conventional use of a communication interface to communicate data. Dependent Claims 2-9 either introduce additional math or data reception/transmission which is the conventional usage of the communication interface to communicate data. Claims 10-18 are similarly situated to Claims 1-9.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
Remarks
Claim 1 is representative and relevantly claims generating a transmission key based on a second modulus of an extended ring that is larger than a first modulus of a subring. Examiner does not believe it is appropriate to break the limitation apart in an obviousness analysis, and Examiner finds no anticipatory reference. Consequently, Examiner makes no prior art rejection to the claims. Examiner cites Yang (US Pat. 12,567,965), Brakerski (WO 2025/154060 A1), and Lauter (US Pat. 11,196,539) for the record.
However, Claim 1 is directed to using math to create a key and then engaging in conventional networking data transfer to transfer the key, with the only other limitations being conventional computer hardware. Therefore, the claim is directed to mathematics without significantly more and is ineligible. The dependent claims either perform more math (Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9) or other conventional insignificant acts such as data reception and transmission (Claim 4). Claims 10-18 are analogous to Claims 1-9. Notably, none of the claims ever claim the use of the generated keys in some particular manner that effectuates computer security.
Consequently, all claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights