DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending.
The claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/15/25 have been fully considered.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection (pages 6-8), Examiner acknowledged Applicant’s perspective but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
The current claims recite an obtaining step and an executing control of changing step. However, as explained in the 101 rejection below, these two steps under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of a computer, computer-readable medium, a memory, and a processor are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Moreover, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, other than implementing an abstract idea on a computer, the claims do not recite any specific components or steps that clearly reflect improvement(s) to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant mentioned ¶36-41, fig. 14, ¶155-157, fig. 15, and ¶161-166 when discussing how the claims provide an improvement in authentication processing and reduction in workload. However, it should be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The current claims do not incorporate the specific features described in the above figures and paragraphs. The recitation of the above obtaining and executing control of changing steps is still not sufficient to clearly reflect the improvement(s) to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are still not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claims --1, 8, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite limitation for performing certain step(s) only if a specific condition is satisfied (IF Statement). Such limitations are considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Applicant should change the word “when” to “responsive to determining that…” in order to alter an optional limitation to a required limitation. For the purpose of examination, claimed limitations will be considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met.
“authenticity of the data” in line 2 of claim 8 should read “the authenticity of the data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites obtaining a first evaluation value for an evaluation item related to reliability corresponding to a combined signature that is obtained by aggregating therein a plurality of cryptographic signatures, and a second evaluation value for the evaluation item related to reliability corresponding to any one cryptographic signature of the plurality of cryptographic signatures; and executing, when the obtained first evaluation value and the obtained second evaluation value differ from each other, control of changing the second evaluation value using the first evaluation value when a type of the evaluation item relates to reliability for a social item, and control of changing the first evaluation value using the second evaluation value when the type of the evaluation item relates to reliability for authenticity of data.
The limitation of obtaining a first evaluation value for an evaluation item related to reliability corresponding to a combined signature that is obtained by aggregating therein a plurality of cryptographic signatures, and a second evaluation value for the evaluation item related to reliability corresponding to any one cryptographic signature of the plurality of cryptographic signatures as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user reading or calculating a first evaluation value for an evaluation item related to reliability corresponding to a combined signature that is obtained by aggregating therein a plurality of cryptographic signatures, and a second evaluation value for an evaluation item related to reliability corresponding to any one cryptographic signature of the plurality of cryptographic signatures.
The limitation of executing, when the obtained first evaluation value and the obtained second evaluation value differ from each other, control of changing the second evaluation value using the first evaluation value when a type of the evaluation item relates to reliability for a social item, and control of changing the first evaluation value using the second evaluation value when the type of the evaluation item relates to reliability for authenticity of data as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “executing…control of changing…” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changing the second evaluation value using the first evaluation value when a type of the evaluation item relates to reliability for a social item and changing the first evaluation value using the second evaluation value when the type of the evaluation item relates to reliability for authenticity of data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer to perform the steps. However, the additional element of the computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-8 further clarify the concept recited in claim 1 however this clarification still falls under the concept recited in claim 1 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 4-8 are rejected for at least the reason stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9 although not using the exact claim language, contains similar elements as recited in claim 1 and is also rejected for similar reasons. Claim 9 additionally recites a computer-readable medium including instructions for causing a computer to perform the operations. However, the medium is recited at a high level of generality and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 although not using the exact claim language, contains similar elements as recited in claim 1 and is also rejected for similar reasons. Claim 10 additionally recites a memory and a processor to perform the operations. However, the memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Narayanan (US 20120278625) discloses a user device generates a social graph-based user certificate that conveys a trust level to other users of the social network. A user certificate for a user is obtained, the user having a user public key and corresponding user private key. A plurality of potential signers is identified within one or more social networks. The certificate is then sent to the identified plurality of potential signers. One or more signed versions of the user certificate may be received from at least some of the plurality of potential signers. The user device may assign a signer weight to each signed version of the user certificate, each corresponding signer weight associated with the signer of each signed version of the certificate. The user certificate, the user signature, one or more signed versions of the user certificate, and the user-assigned signer weights are distributed to one or more recipients.
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 extension fee 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 TRONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 9:30 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GELAGAY SHEWAYE can be reached on (571)272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436