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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 17, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on December 17, 2025. Claims 1-40 were pending in the Application. Claims 19, 22-23, 27, and 34-40 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 1-18, 20-21, 24-25, and 32-33 remaining canceled. Claims 19 and 34-35 are the independent claim, the remaining claims depend on claims 19 and 34-35. Thus, claims 19, 22-23, 26-31 and 34-40 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as clearly erroneous. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “when evaluating whether a claim is useful, e.g., directed to a practical application of a concept, no portion of a claim can be ignored; only a claim that is totally incapable of producing a useful result, such as one that is totally abstract without any tangible limitation, can support a rejection under 101, "If ... claims [cover a machine implemented process and not the mental implementation thereof, the claims] overcome [a] § 101 rejection, since the machine-implemented process is clearly statutory", (In re Mahony, 421 F.2d 742, 745 (C.C.P.A. 1970)); the Supreme Court identified three types of subject matter not "made by man", they are "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas", none of which are implicated in the claimed subject matter, reading each claim only as a whole from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic transaction systems utilizing automated reader terminals; the problem and claimed solution arise in the realm of networked computing devices that perform, on average, 5+ billion payment transactions per day; the claimed invention is an automated solution to a real problem that cannot be solved manually, meaning there is no human equivalent to the claimed invention; following case law and MPEP guidance, reading the claims as a whole (i.e., without dissection and out of context misinterpretation) as one of ordinary skill applying semantics would do, the evaluation procedure would end at MPEP step 2a.1 because the claims clearly recite a practical application of an automated reader terminal with a well-established utility in any of billions of electronic access, identity, and/or payment transactions that occur each day utilizing automated reader terminals; the rejection of claims 19, 22, 23, 26-31, and 34-40 under 35 USC § 101 is clearly erroneous; and claims 19, 22, 23, 26-31, and 34-40, each read as a whole as they must be, recite patentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20220374896 A1, para 4), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘896 A1, para 4), discloses that the invention relates to providing identity, payment and/or access by determining a transaction result, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 19 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “providing a terminal that (i) automatically reads or determines credentials, including a first credential type and a second credential type, by wirelessly communicating with cards and devices and (ii) conditionally hashes the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type and not hashing a credential of the second credential type; reading, by the terminal, an input credential of the first credential type from a first card or a first device; performing, by the terminal, the conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential; and determining, by the terminal, a transaction result based on a comparison of the hashed credential to a terminal instance of a whitelist or sending, by the terminal, the hashed credential to a server that determines the transaction result based on a comparison of the hashed credential to a server instance of the whitelist”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “determining a transaction result”. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “providing a terminal”, “wirelessly communicating with cards and devices”, “a first card or a first device”, and “a server”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “determining a transaction result”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “determining a transaction result”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “determining a transaction result”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a determining a transaction result concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Claim 34 also recites the abstract idea of “determining a transaction result”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a terminal”, “a device”, and “a server configured”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “determining a transaction result” using computer technology (e.g., “a terminal” and “a server configured”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 34 is non-statutory.
Claim 35 also recites the abstract idea of “determining a transaction result”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a terminal, cause the terminal to: …”, “a card or device”, and “a server configured”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “determining a transaction result” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a card or device”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 35 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 18, 2025, Applicant arguments are persuasive and/or has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by amending claim 34 to recite “a terminal configured to: read or determine …; perform a conditional hash …; if the input credential is the first credential type, determine a transaction result …; if the input credential is the second credential type, determine the transaction result …”. Therefore, Safak fails to disclose or suggest each and every element of the newly amended subject matter. Based on the amended claim 34, Examiner has rescinded the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 34 and 37-38.
Applicant arguments are persuasive and/or has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by amending claim 35 to recite “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a terminal, cause the terminal to: read or determine …; perform a conditional hash …; if the input credential is the first credential type, determine a transaction result …; and if the input credential is the second credential type, determine the transaction result …”. Therefore, Safak fails to disclose or suggest each and every element of the newly amended subject matter. Based on the amended claim 35, Examiner has rescinded the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 35 and 39-40.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 18, 2025, Examiner submits that Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Final Rejection Office Action, dated September 18, 2025, of Dogin, US 11544781 B2, Itzhaki, US 11509647 B2, Tang, US 11301865 B2, and Ghosh, US 7357309 B2, and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least “performing, by the terminal, the conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential” and “determining, by the terminal, a transaction result based on a comparison of the hashed credential to a terminal instance of a whitelist or sending, by the terminal, the hashed credential to a server that determines the transaction result based on a comparison of the hashed credential to a server instance of the whitelist”. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 19, 22-23, 26-31, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 19, 22-23, 26-31, and 36 are directed to a “method”; claims 34 and 37-38 are directed to a “system”; and claims 35 and 39-40 are directed to a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 19 recites “determining a transaction result”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 19 recites the method limitations “providing a terminal that (i) automatically reads or determines credentials, including a first credential type and a second credential type, by wirelessly communicating with cards and devices and (ii) conditionally hashes the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type and not hashing a credential of the second credential type; reading, by the terminal, an input credential of the first credential type from a first card or a first device; performing, by the terminal, the conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential; and determining, by the terminal, a transaction result based on a comparison of the hashed credential to a terminal instance of a whitelist or sending, by the terminal, the hashed credential to a server that determines the transaction result based on a comparison of the hashed credential to a server instance of the whitelist”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP § 2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP § 2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “providing a terminal”, “wirelessly communicating with cards and devices”, “a first card or a first device”, and “a server”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “determining a transaction result” using computer technology (e.g., “a terminal” and “a server”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Claim 34 also recites the abstract idea of “determining a transaction result”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a terminal”, “a device”, and “a server configured”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “determining a transaction result” using computer technology (e.g., “a terminal” and “a server configured”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 34 is non-statutory.
Claim 35 also recites the abstract idea of “determining a transaction result”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a terminal, cause the terminal to: …”, “a card or device”, and “a server configured”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining a transaction result.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “determining a transaction result” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “a card or device”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 35 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 22-23, 26-31, and 36-40 further describe the abstract idea of “determining a transaction result”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 19 and 34-35.
Dependent claims 23, 27-31, and 36-40 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of an “determining a transaction result”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claim 22 recites new additional elements of “a local server”, “a backend server”, and “a remote access server”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 26 recites a new additional element of “a software data kit (SDK)”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 19, 22-23, 26-31, and 34-40 are 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.
Claim 19, 22-23, 26-31, and 34-40 is 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 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.
New Matter
Claim 19 recites, “providing a terminal that … and (ii) conditionally hashes the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type and not hashing a credential of the second credential type …”. Specification, (PG Pub US 20220374896 A1, FIG. 4, 17, items 400, 1700), displays 8 categories of credential types with seven of the eight categories having a hashed PAN credential type, however, the figures do not disclose a first and second credential type with conditionally hashed credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type and not hashing a credential of the second credential type. Applicant’s remarks (12/17/2025) page 7, paragraph 2 refers to the specification ¶ 0062 to show support for this feature. That paragraph reads as follows, in it entirety, “[0062] In one implementation NFC data exchange performed by a terminal can be modified to perform a READ RECORD followed by a GPO. This implementation enables a single-tap hashed PAN reading mode for loyalty systems.”. It is unclear how this paragraph supports the limitations in question.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 54), recites “… The terminals are categorized according to the type of transaction, the credential type, the type of solution provided, deployment model version, whether an ATC update is performed, and the type of certification that is performed”, which is directed to the terminals being categorized by the credential type as well as other attributes, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 55), recites “… A Category 1 terminal is provided for simple access. The credential type for this type of system is a hashed PAN”, which is directed to a Category 1 terminal being provided for simple access with the credential type for this type of system as being a hashed PAN, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 56), recites “… A Category 2 terminal is provided for access and/or transit systems. The credential for this type of system is a hashed PAN and CDA. CDA, which is also referred to as combined data authentication, …”, which is directed to a Category 2 terminal being provided for access and/or transit systems with the credential type for this type of system as being a hashed PAN and CDA, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 57), recites “… A Category 3 terminal is provided for secure access systems. Secure access systems can be directed to access and/or identification systems The credential for this type of system is a hashed PAN and CDA …”, which is directed to a Category 3 terminal being provided for secure access systems with the credential type for this type of system as being a hashed PAN and CDA, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 58), recites “… A Category 4 terminal is provided for loyalty systems. Loyalty systems can be directed to merchant retail stores and/or payments. The credential for this type of system is a hashed PAN and CDA …”, which is directed to a
Category 4 terminal being provided for loyalty systems with the credential type for this type of system as being a hashed PAN and CDA, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 88), recites “… Category 5 terminal is provided for simple access. The credential type for this type of system is an access ID or a payment account reference (PAR) …”, which is directed to a Category 5 terminal being provided for simple access with the credential type for this type of system as being an access ID or a payment account reference (PAR), however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 89), recites “… Category 6 terminal is pro-vided for secure access systems. Secure access systems can be directed to access and/or identification systems. The credential for this type of system is a hashed PAN and CDA …”, which is directed to a Category 6 terminal being provided for secure access systems with the credential type for these type of system as being a hashed PAN and CDA, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 90), recites “… Category 7 terminal is provided for access and/or transit systems … the Category 7 terminal is provided for an open transit system. The credential for this type of system is a hashed PAN and CDA …”, which is directed to a Category 7 terminal being provided for access and/or transit systems, and provided for an open transit system, with the credential type for these type of systems as being a hashed PAN and CDA, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 91), recites “… Category 8 terminal is provided for access and/or payment systems … the Category 8 terminal is provided for retail innovation systems. Retail innovation can be directed to merchant retail stores and/or payments. The credential for this type of system is a hashed PAN and CDA …”, which is directed to a Category 8 terminal being provided for access and/or payment systems, and provided for retail innovation systems, which can be directed to merchant retail stores and/or payments, with the credential type for these type of systems as being a hashed PAN and CDA, however, it is not directed to conditionally hashing the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type, and not directed to not hashing a credential of the second credential type.
Specification, (‘896 A1, FIG. 4, 17, items 400, 1700; paras 54-58, 88-91) lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions “conditionally hashes the credentials by hashing a credential of the first credential type” and “not hashing a credential of the second credential type” to be performed. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Dependent claims 22-23, 26-31, and 36, which depend from claim 19, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
Claim 19 recites, “performing, …, the conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential …”. Specification, (‘896 A1, FIG. 8, item 810), displays a hashedPanSalt with a description of a salt value that is appended to the PAN and hashed to generate unique EMV card values across different terminals, however, the figure does not describe conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential.
Specification, (‘896 A1, para 53), recites “… Salt is provisioned to the terminal 320 by the access server 330. The PAN/DAN is read from the EMV card or token. A salt is random data that is used as an additional input to a one-way function that hashes data, a password or passphrase. Salts are used to safeguard PANs/DANs. A new salt is randomly generated for each PAN/DAN … the salt and the PAN/DAN (or a version of the PAN/DAN) are concatenated and fed to a cryptographic hash function …”, which is directed to a salt being provisioned to the terminal by the access server with the salt being random data used as an additional input to a one-way function that hashes data, a password or passphrase; used to safeguard PANs/DANs; and the salt and the PAN/DAN being concatenated and fed to a cryptographic hash function, however, it is not directed to performing the conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential.
Specification, (‘896 A1, FIG. 8, item 810; para 53) lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function “performing, …, the conditional hashing of the input credential with a salt to generate a hashed credential” to be performed. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 34-35. Dependent claims 22-23, 26-31, and 36, which depend from claim 19; dependent claims 37-38, which depend from claim 34; and dependent claims 39-40, which depend from claim 35, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Engert (U. S. Patent No. 9253199B2) – Verifying Authenticity Of A Sender Of An Electronic Message Sent To A Recipient Using Message Salt
Engert discloses a server receiving a verification request sent by a client associated with a recipient of an electronic message to verify authenticity of a sender of the electronic message, where the verification request comprises message data of the electronic message and a salt hash value. The server identifies a key for the sender for generating a salt hash value and generates the salt hash value using the salt key and the message data. The server determines whether the generated salt hash value matches the salt hash value received in the verification request and sends a result to the client based on the determination of whether the salt hash values match.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 20, 2026