DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-5, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-5,8-10 and 12-13 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.
Regarding cliam 8; The claims reciting the limitations “generate[[ing ]]an updating token based on a difference between the homomorphic probabilistic encryption scheme based on the first key and a homomorphic probabilistic encryption scheme based on a second key; generate[[ing]] a second ciphertext by encrypting the first ciphertext with the updating token; select[[ing]] a set of second ciphertext blocks from the second ciphertext; revert[[ting]] the set of second ciphertext blocks with the updating token to a set of third ciphertext blocks; and compu[[ting]] a Renyi divergence between blocks of the set of second ciphertext blocks and corresponding blocks of the set of third ciphertext blocks. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea of mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e., a compu[[ting]] a Renyi divergence between blocks are). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a processing device performing a generic computer function of receiving/dididing/ converting/performing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply to data 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 elements, said elements 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. receiving, and storing in the memory, data for performing a convert[[ing]] operation, the data comprising or corresponding to a ciphertext having a first number of dimensions; in view of Berkeeimer memo. 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 2-5; clams 2-5 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.
Regarding claims 8-13; clams 8-13 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 applic
ation nor being significantly more.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Pub. Number 2023/0388116 A1 to Sehrawat-Sehrawat teaches key rotation verification without decryption is provided. Two ciphertext inputs encrypted from a plaintext input by an encryption function using different cryptographic keys are input, wherein the encryption function is selected from a function family having an output space of one or more convex sets. A divergence between the two ciphertext inputs is computed. A membership oracle is executed on the two ciphertext inputs, wherein the two ciphertext inputs are determined to be members of the same convex set of the one or more convex sets if the computed divergence satisfies a separation condition.
U.S. Pub. Number 2016/0204936 A1 to Sakemi-Sakemi teaches transforming registered data on a user, which is encrypted with an encryption algorithm that enables a calculation of a Hamming distance in an encrypted state, such that a calculation result of a Hamming distance between the registered data and verification data that is encrypted with the algorithm includes a Hamming distance between the verification data and the user and a Hamming distance between the verification data and a random vector generated from user's registered data; and determining whether the input verification data is false based on a result of comparison of each of the Hamming distance between the verification data and the user and the Hamming distance between the verification data and the random vector.
U.S. Pub. Number 2015/0207630 A1 to Shimoyama-Shimoyama teaches authentication sever receives Hamming distance, and decrypts the Hamming distance by using the secret key of homomorphic encryption. When the Hamming distance decrypted into a plaintext is less than a predetermined value, authentication server transmits a verification result of affirmative; that is, a verification result of approving the authentication of the Hamming distance. Furthermore, the authentication server transmits, when the Hamming distance decrypted into a plaintext is equal to or more than the predetermined value, a verification result of negative; that is, a verification result of rejecting the authentication of the Hamming distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM- 4 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, Biill korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589 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.
/VU V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491