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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is of the opinion that Bowen fails to teach “the gateway polling a digital certificate processing node to obtain latest digital certificate processing task template data”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bowen discloses: the gateway (i.e. certificate management server) polling (i.e. data request) a digital certificate processing node (i.e. client computer system) to obtain latest digital certificate processing task template data (See column 21 lines 10-50 i.e. client computer system receives the set of available templates from the certificate management server…the user enters the request data into the user interface and submits the request for the new digital certificate to the certificate management server). Therefore, Bowen discloses the limitation.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 16-26 have been examined.
Claims 11-15 have been canceled by the Applicant.
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 6, 18 and 19 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitations are: “an obtaining module configured to…”, “a first generation module configured to…”, “a first sending module configured to…”in claim 6, “a first receiving module configured to…”, “a second generation module configured to…”, a second sending module configured to…” in claim 18, and “a second receiving module configured to…”, “a verification module configured to…”, and third sending module configured to…” in claim 19.
Because these claim limitations 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 these limitations 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 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 1-10 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-5, 16-17 and 26 are directed to a method, claims 6-10 are directed to a gateway computer system comprising one or more processors, claims 18-20 are directed to a digital certificate processing service device comprising at least one processor, claim 21 is directed to a distributed digital certificate processing system comprising one or more processors and claims 22-25 are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to receiving data, modify the data and sending the modified data which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “polling…obtain latest… processing task template data, generating…simplified task template data…; and distributing the simplified task template data…; receiving simplified task template data…; generating…processing task…; and distribute…processing task…” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of requesting a data, modify the data and transferring modified data which is a mental process perform in human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as, gateway, digital certificate, node, processing service device, modules, units, one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, gateway, digital certificate, node, processing service device, modules, units, one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium perform the steps or functions of requesting a data, modify the data and transferring modified data. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of gateway, digital certificate, node, processing service device, modules, units, one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of receiving information, analyzing information and proving the result. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, gateway, digital certificate, node, processing service device, modules, units, one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium perform the steps or functions of requesting a data, modify the data and transferring modified data. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of receiving data, modify the data and sending the modified data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 17, 19 and 22-26 further describe the abstract idea of receiving data, modify the data and sending the modified data. Specifically, claims 2 and 7 describing generating of simplified data which is part of the abstract idea. Claims further describing the additional element of Merkle tree, hash tree. Claims 3-4 and 8-9 further describing the abstract idea of receiving data, modify the data and sending the modified data. Claims 5 and 10 describing obtaining information and forwarding the information which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 17 and 19 further describing the abstract idea by receiving information, verifying and sending information which is part of the abstract idea of receiving data, modify the data and sending the modified data. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 19-18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 6, 18-19, “an obtaining module configured to…”, “a first generation module configured to…”, “a first sending module configured to…”in claim 6, “a first receiving module configured to…”, “a second generation module configured to…”, a second sending module configured to…” in claim 18, and “a second receiving module configured to…”, “a verification module configured to…”, and third sending module configured to…” invoke 112(f) as described above. The claim is rejected as while the specification, indeed, discloses the recited terms, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the polling is periodic”. However, Specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: The gateway polls the digital certificate processing node to obtain the digital certificate processing template data, and removes, from the digital certificate processing template data, data having a large data volume and unnecessary for digital certificate processing, so as to obtain the simplified task template data. In other words, only data necessary for the digital certificate processing is delivered and transmitted to the digital certificate processing service devices (See paragraph 0073) but does not describe that the polling is periodic.
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 6 and 18-19 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 82 such as ““an obtaining module configured to…”, “a first generation module configured to…”, “a first sending module configured to…”in claim 6, “a first receiving module configured to…”, “a second generation module configured to…”, a second sending module configured to…” in claim 18, and “a second receiving module configured to…”, “a verification module configured to…”, and third sending module configured to…”” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the limitations use a generic placeholder, such as “unit” coupled with functional language, and are not modified with sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 11563590) in view of Tighe (US 11500824).
With respect to claims 1, 6, 16, 18 and 20-25, Bowen discloses a distributed digital certificate processing method, which is applied to a gateway, the distributed digital certificate processing method comprising:
the gateway (i.e. certificate management server) polling a digital certificate processing node to obtain latest digital certificate processing task template data (See column 21 lines 10-50); wherein the latest digital certificate processing task template data include unnecessary transaction data (See column 6 lines 22-32, column 8 lines 14, column 9 lines 13-15 and column 21 lines 35-38);
generating task template data of the digital certificate processing task based on the digital certificate processing task template data (See column 21 lines 13-40);
distributing the task template data to a digital certificate processing service device (See column 21 lines 10-50).
Bowen does not explicitly teach is: simplified data before distributing.
Tighe discloses: simplified data before distributing, wherein the generating of simplified task template data of a digital certificate processing task comprises removal of the unnecessary transaction data from the digital certificate processing task template data (See column 3 lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s invention filed to modify the Bowen reference with Tighe reference in order to provide data security.
With respect to claim 3, Bowen further discloses the distributed digital certificate processing method, wherein the method further comprises:
generating block data in response to simplified block submission information, and submitting the block data to the digital certificate processing node (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32).
With respect to claim 4, Bowen further discloses the distributed digital certificate processing method, wherein the generating block data in response to simplified block submission information, and submitting the block data to the digital certificate processing node comprises:
obtaining block header information in the simplified block submission information (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32);
adding transaction data based on the block header information (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32); and
submitting assembly information of the block header information and the transaction data to the digital certificate processing node (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32).
With respect to claims 5 and 10, Bowen further discloses the distributed digital certificate processing method, wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining registration information of the digital certificate processing service device, and establishing a connection to the digital certificate processing service device based on the registration information (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32).
With respect to claim 17, Bowen further discloses the distributed digital certificate processing method, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving share information sent by the digital certificate processing device (col. 33, line 53-col. 34, lines 29);
verifying whether a block header constructed based on the share information meets a block submission criterion (col. 33, line 53-col. 34, lines 29); and
sending simplified block submission information to a gateway if the block header meets. the block submission criterion (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32).
With respect to claim 19, Bowen further discloses the digital certificate processing service device, wherein the digital certificate processing service device further comprises:
a second receiving module configured to receive share information sent by the digital certificate processing device (col. 33, line 53-col. 34, lines 29);
a verification module configured to verify whether a block header constructed based on the share information meets a block submission criterion (col. 33, line 53-col. 34, lines 29); and
a third sending module configured to send simplified block submission information to a gateway if the block header meets the block submission criterion (col. 33, line 53-col. 34, lines 29).
With respect to claim 26, Bowen discloses all the limitations as described above. With respect to “wherein the polling is periodic” this is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the data, while description of the data is not used to perform any of the recited method steps/functions. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Claims 2 and 7-9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 11563590) Tighe (US 11500824), and further in view of Uhr (US 20180294977).
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Bowen further discloses the distributed digital certificate processing method, wherein the generating simplified task template data of a digital certificate processing task based on the digital certificate processing task template data comprises:
extracting, from the digital certificate processing task template data, a field required for digital certificate processing task data, wherein the field comprises a task list (col. 6, line 63-col. 7, lines 30);
constructing a Merkle tree of digital certificate transaction data based on the task list;
computing a left tree hash list of the Merkle tree;
generating a block initial digital certificate transaction (col. 6, line 63-col. 7, lines 30); and
generating the simplified task template data based on the left tree hash list and the block initial digital certificate transaction (col. 6, line 63-col. 7, lines 30) but failed to explicitly disclose
constructing a Merkle tree of digital certificate transaction data based on the task list;
computing a left tree hash list of the Merkle tree;
Uhr discloses the distributed digital certificate processing method, wherein the generating simplified task template data of a digital certificate processing task based on the digital certificate processing task template data comprises:
constructing a Merkle tree of digital certificate transaction data based on the task list (see claim 11);
computing a left tree hash list of the Merkle tree (see claim 11);
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s invention to modify the method of Bowen and incorporate the method comprising: constructing a Merkle tree of digital certificate transaction data based on the task list; computing a left tree hash list of the Merkle tree in view of the teachings of Uhr in order to facilitate transaction and enhance security.
With respect to claim 8, Bowen further discloses the gateway, wherein the gateway further comprises a block submission module configured to generate block data in response to simplified block submission information, and submit the block data to the digital certificate processing node (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32).
With respect to claim 9, Bowen further discloses the gateway, wherein the block submission module further comprises:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain block header information in the simplified block submission information (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32);
an addition unit configured to add transaction data based on the block header information (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32); and
a submission unit configured to submit assembly information of the block header information and the transaction data to the digital certificate processing node (col. 11, line 40- col. 12, lines 32)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697