DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 18 September 2025. By this response, Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-20, 22-26, and 28-32 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-32 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to Figures 14-17 as requiring a prior art label, Applicant merely alleges that the figures do not illustrate prior art and provide details of the hardware environment of embodiments of the disclosure (pages 11-12 of the present response). Applicant provides no evidence or explanation in support of this allegation. It is noted that the elements depicted in Figures 14-17 are all generic computing components that are not clearly linked to the asserted inventive subject matter. See also paragraphs 0468, 0504, 0538-0541, and 0576-0579, for example, describing the drawings in generic terms. Therefore, only that which is old is illustrated.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, and with respect to Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that, because the methods of Claims 1 and 19 have been amended to specifically recite that the methods are performed by a first or second node and therefore are performed within a hardware environment, this is more than a mere mathematical function and therefore allegedly provides a practical application (pages 12-13 of the present response). However, at most, the recitations of the first and second nodes constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f), or a recitation of a technological environment for the abstract idea as per MPEP § 2106.05(h). Although Applicant states that the steps “provide more than mere mathematical functions” (page 13 of the present response), Applicant provides no explanation of what other steps or functions may be provided by any particular method steps. Further, with respect to Step 2B, although Applicant makes a bare conclusory allegation that the claims recite unconventional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (page 13 of the present response), Applicant provides no explanation of what these recited unconventional elements may be or how such elements may amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, Applicant argues that a specific algorithm for generating the PSK is not required and the specification “recites numerous disclosure [sic] on key generation” (page 13 of the present response, citing paragraph 0035 of the specification). However, the cited paragraph 0035 only describes generation of the PSK in the same manner as recited in the claims. Stating inputs and outputs of a function is not enough to provide a clear definition of what such a function may include without providing a specific algorithm, equation, or examples of how the function performs such key generation. Regarding the limitation “the first identity authentication information is generated based on the first PSK and the first fresh parameter or based on the first PSK and the first association request message”, upon further consideration, the use of the conjunctions in this limitation is not separately indefinite. However, to increase clarity in the claims, it is recommended that this phrase could be amended to even more clearly delimit the alternatives, e.g. “the first identity authentication information is generated (a) based on the first PSK and the first fresh parameter or (b) based on the first PSK and the first association request message”.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01 October 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In particular, although a translation has been provided for Chinese patent publication CN 113455024 B, no copy of the original patent document itself appears to have been provided as required by 37 CFR 1.98(2)(i). The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The objection to Figures 14-17 as requiring a prior art label is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
Figures 14-17 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objections to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter and relating to the use of trademarks are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
It is noted that, because the original claims provided sufficient written description for the term “non-transitory”, the specification could also have been amended to include such a descriptor (as an alternative to amending the claims to remove such a term).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of Claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that includes receiving a first association request message, obtaining a first pre-shared key generated based on parameters, and sending a first authentication request message that includes first identity authentication information generated based on the PSK and parameters. The steps of generating the key and authentication information based on parameters are mathematical calculations. These constitute mathematical concepts, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite a clear use or substantial further action for the generated information. The step of sending the message is insignificant post-solution activity, i.e. necessary output of the mathematical operations, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). There is nothing that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract ideas in conjunction with a particular machine or article of manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). At most, the recitations of the nodes (e.g. that the method is performed by the first node) constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f), or a recitation of a field or use or technological environment for the abstract idea as per MPEP § 2106.05(h). The step of receiving a message constitutes data gathering, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Obtaining the pre-shared key appears to constitute either abstract mathematical calculations, as noted above, or mere data gathering. There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract ideas in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of receiving and sending the message constitute receiving or sending data over a network, and obtaining the pre-shared key constitutes either receiving data over a network or retrieving data from memory, which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and Versata. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the steps are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similarly, Claim 19 recites a method that includes sending a first association request message, receiving a first authentication request message, and obtaining a second pre-shared key generated based on parameters. The step of generating the key based on parameters is a mathematical calculation. This constitutes a mathematical concept, which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite a clear use or substantial further action for the generated information. Although the claim recites that the obtained second PSK is used to verify the identity of the first node, this merely recites an intended use because the claim does not positively include an active step of verification (and it is further noted that verification, by itself, may constitute an abstract idea of a mental process if only generically recited). There is nothing that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract ideas in conjunction with a particular machine or article of manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). At most, the recitations of the nodes (e.g. that the method is performed by the second node) constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f), or a recitation of a field or use or technological environment for the abstract idea as per MPEP § 2106.05(h). The step of sending the message merely constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). The step of receiving a message constitutes data gathering, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Obtaining the pre-shared key appears to constitute either abstract mathematical calculations, as noted above, or mere data gathering. There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract ideas in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of sending and receiving the messages constitute sending or receiving data over a network, and obtaining the pre-shared key constitutes either receiving data over a network or retrieving data from memory, which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and Versata. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the steps are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 20-27 only recite further detail of the abstract steps/functions of mathematical calculations by reciting additional calculations to compute or further details of the inputs to the functions. Therefore, the dependent claims do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claims 10-18 and 28-32 are directed to apparatus having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-9 and 19-23, respectively, and therefore, Claims 10-18 and 28-32 recite abstract ideas for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to Claims 1 and 19. The recitations of the processor and storage medium are at a generic level and constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the apparatus claims are also not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1-32 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above, and because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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 1-32 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 1 recites “obtaining a first pre-shared key” in line 5. However, it is not clear from where this key is obtained. The claim further recites that “the first PSK is a PSK generated based on a second parameter from the second node and a third parameter from the first node” in lines 6-7. However, the claim and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK. Similarly, the claim also recites “the first identity authentication information is generated based on the first PSK and the first parameter or based on the first PSK and the first association request message” in lines 9-11. Again, the claim and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such identity authentication information. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “receiving a first authentication response message from the second node” in line 3. It is not clear where this message is received. The claim further recites “an earlier successful verification performed at the second node on the second identity authentication information that is based on the first PSK and the fourth parameter” in lines 6-7. It is not clear when the verification of the second identity authentication information is performed, which amounts to a gap in the claim, or if the verification is a step of the claimed method. Further, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the second identity authentication information that is based on the first PSK and the fourth parameter”.
Claim 4 recites “generating the first PSK based on the first parameter and the fourth parameter” in lines 3-4. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 6 recites “generating the first PSK is further based on a first password” in lines 2-5. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 7 recites “generating the first PSK is further based on a first password and the first key agreement algorithm parameter” in lines 3-6. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 8 recites “generating the first PSK is further based on a first password and an intermediate key” in lines 3-6. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 10 recites “obtaining a first pre-shared key” in line 9. However, it is not clear from where this key is obtained. The claim further recites that “the first PSK is a PSK generated based on a second parameter from the second node and a third parameter from the first node” in lines 10-11. However, the claim and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK. Similarly, the claim also recites “the first identity authentication information is generated based on the first PSK and the first parameter or based on the first PSK and the first association request message” in lines 14-16. Again, the claim and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such identity authentication information. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “an earlier successful verification performed at the second node on the second identity authentication information that is based on the first PSK and the fourth parameter” in lines 6-8. It is not clear when the verification of the second identity authentication information is performed, which amounts to a gap in the claim, and further, the verification is not clearly a function of the claimed first node. Further, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the second identity authentication information that is based on the first PSK and the fourth parameter”.
Claim 13 recites “generating the first PSK based on the first parameter and the fourth parameter” in lines 3-4. the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 15 recites “generating the first PSK is further based on a first password” in lines 2-5. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 16 recites “generating the first PSK is further based on a first password and the first key agreement algorithm parameter” in lines 3-6. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 17 recites “generating the first PSK is further based on a first password and an intermediate key” in lines 3-6. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 19 recites “obtaining a second pre-shared key” in line 7. However, it is not clear from where this key is obtained. The claim further recites that “the second PSK is a PSK generated based on a second parameter from a second node and a third parameter from the first node” in lines 8-9. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “an earlier successful verification performed at the second node and on the first identity authentication information that is based on the second PSK and the first parameter” in lines 4-6. It is not clear when the verification of the second identity authentication information is performed, which amounts to a gap in the claim, or if the verification is a step of the claimed method. Further, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the second identity authentication information that is based on the first PSK and the first parameter”. The claim further recites “the second identity authentication information is generated based on the second PSK and the fourth parameter” in lines 8-9. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such identity authentication information.
Claim 22 recites “generating the second PSK based on the first parameter and the fourth parameter” in lines 3-4. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 24 recites “generating the second PSK is further based on a first password” in lines 2-5. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 25 recites “generating the second PSK is further based on a first password and the second key agreement algorithm parameter” in lines 3-6. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 26 recites “generating second PSK is further based on a first password and an intermediate key” in lines 3-6. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claim 28 recites “obtaining a second pre-shared key” in line 11. However, it is not clear from where this key is obtained. The claim further recites that “the second PSK is a PSK generated based on a second parameter from a second node and a third parameter from the first node” in lines 12-13. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 29 recites “an earlier successful verification performed at the second node and on the first identity authentication information that is based on the second PSK and the first parameter” in lines 4-6. It is not clear when the verification of the second identity authentication information is performed, which amounts to a gap in the claim. Further, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the second identity authentication information that is based on the first PSK and the first parameter”. The claim further recites “the second identity authentication information is generated based on the second PSK and the fourth parameter” in lines 8-9. The claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such identity authentication information.
Claim 31 recites “generating the second PSK based on the first parameter and the fourth parameter” in lines 3-4. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such a PSK.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite due to the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are also directed to non-eligible subject matter as detailed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-32 in order to analyze the claims for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant are cited on the attached form PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights