DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 September 2026 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 23-25 have been amended. Claims 6, 12, 20, and 27 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not clearly comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims must include markings indicating the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In particular, at least Claims 26 and 30 appear to have had text deleted without being marked with strikethrough or double brackets as required. As a courtesy and for purposes of advancing prosecution, the amendments have been entered and treated as though they were fully compliant. Applicant is reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to Figures 7-14 as requiring a prior art label, Applicant argues that the figures illustrate embodiments of systems configured to perform the claimed invention and that although certain individual components may be conventionally known, the figures illustrate the components as arranged and configured to implement the claimed functionality (page 11 of the present response). However, while Applicant asserts that the figures may include “some conventional components”, it is noted that in all of Figures 7-14, all of the depicted components are generic and conventional computer components (e.g. communications unit or interface, processor or processing unit, memory, bus), and Applicant has not provided any evidence or explanation in support of the assertion that the figures illustrate the components as configured to implement the claimed invention. It is again noted that all of the elements depicted in Figures 7-14 (apparatus having processors or processing units, communications units, and memory) are all shown in a generic manner and appear to only illustrate generic and well-known computer components. Therefore, only that which is old is illustrated.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, with particular reference to amended independent Claim 1 and referring to Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that Claim 1 recites a specific protocol to establish an association, and that mathematical calculations performed by a key derivation function are integrated into a specific technological process for authenticating communicating nodes and establishing a secure association (pages 12-13 of the present response). However, the consideration of whether mathematical calculations are integrated into a practical application is the analysis under Prong Two, not Prong One. Under Prong One, it is noted that the claim as amended still recites mathematical calculations, namely generating first identity authentication information using a key derivation function, as well as computing a verification value using the shared key. The claim also now recites a mental process of comparing the verification value with the second identity authentication information. Therefore, the claims still at least recite abstract ideas. With respect to Prong Two, although Applicant argues that the claim includes establishing the association only upon successful verification (page 13 of the present response), the claim does not positively recite a step of actually establishing a secure association between nodes. Rather, the claim only requires sending a response used to indicate that the node has established an association. This notification constitutes insignificant post-solution activity, e.g. necessary output of the comparison, as per MPEP § 2106.05, but does not itself perform the establishment of the association. Further, the claim does not actually recite establishing the association “only upon successful verification” as asserted. It is noted that Claim 1 does not specify what occurs when verification was not successful. 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. It is maintained that the abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the enablement requirement, Applicant argues that the claims as amended recite generating first identity information based on a shared key or performing verification based on a shared key, which is asserted to be supported by paragraphs 0555-0558 and 0562-0563 of the published application (pages 13-14 of the present response). However, although these paragraphs include equations where authentication information is calculated using a KDF, for example AUTHa = KDF(PSK), this does not provide any underlying detail of what the key derivation function might encompass, nor does it clearly enable the full scope of the generation of the information based on a shared key.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings as requiring a prior art label is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
Figures 7-14 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite “computing a verification value using the shared key and comparing the verification value with the second identity information value”. Claims 8 and 23 have been amended to recite “computing… a verification value using the shared key and comparing the verification value with the first identity information value”. There is no mention in the specification of a verification value or of comparing any values. Therefore, there is not proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further reference, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 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; determining that a second node is trusted; generating first identity authentication information using a key derivation function; sending a first authentication request message that includes the first identity authentication information; receiving a first authentication response including second identity authentication information; performing verification on the second identity authentication information by computing a verification value and comparing the verification value with the second identity authentication information, and sending a response to indicate that the first node has established an association with the second node. The steps of generating the first identity authentication information and computing the verification value are mathematical calculations, which constitute mathematical concepts, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Further, the step of determining that the second node is trusted encompasses mental processes (for example, see Claim 3, where it could simply entail checking for an identifier in a list, which only requires simple data comparisons), and comparing the verification value with the second identity authentication information is a simple comparison of two numbers which constitutes a mental process and/or a basic mathematical concept. Mental processes are also 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 result of the verification. The steps of receiving the first association request and first authentication response constitute data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Similarly, the step of sending the request is also insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. necessary output of the mathematical operations, and the step of sending the first association response in response to the verification succeeding also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Although the response indicates that an association has been established, the step of establishing the association is not positively recited as a step of the method, and further, establishing an association does not clearly result in any physical change. 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 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). 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 requests and responses constitute receiving or sending data over a network, 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., and buySAFE. 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 8 recites a method that includes determining that a first node is trusted and sending a first association request; receiving a first authentication request that includes first identity authentication information; performing verification on the first identity authentication information based on a shared key by computing a verification value and comparing the verification value with the first identity authentication information; sending a first authentication response that includes second identity authentication information generated based on the shared key; and receiving a response that indicates that the first node has established an association with the second node. The steps of computing the verification value and generating the second identity authentication information are mathematical calculations, which constitute mathematical concepts, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Further, the step of determining that the first node is trusted encompasses mental processes (for example, see Claim 9, where it could simply entail checking for an identifier in a list, which only requires simple data comparisons), and comparing the verification value with the second identity authentication information is a simple comparison of two numbers which constitutes a mental process and/or a basic mathematical concept. Mental processes are also 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 result of the verification. The step of sending the response is insignificant post-solution activity, e.g. necessary output of the mathematical operations, as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). The recitation that the shared key is used for encryption is merely an intended use of the key and is not a positive or active recitation of any step of encryption that is performed by the method. 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 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 steps of receiving the first authentication request and first association response constitutes data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g), and the step of sending the first association request is similarly insignificant extra-solution activity. Although the association response indicates that an association has been established, the step of establishing the association is not positively recited as a step of the method, and further, establishing an association does not clearly result in any physical change. 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 requests and responses constitute receiving or sending data over a network, 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., and buySAFE. 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 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 14 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, or additional abstract steps such as determining whether identifiers are in lists or computing a message integrity check, or comparing a quantity to a threshold. Therefore, the dependent claims do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claims 15-19, 21-26, and 28-30 are directed to apparatus having functionality generally corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, and 14, and therefore, Claims 15-30 recite abstract ideas for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to Claims 1 and 8. The recitations of the memory and processor 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 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 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 rejections of Claims 6, 12, 20, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) are moot in view of the cancellation of the claims. The rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above and because the amendments have raised new issues, and the rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn 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(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 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 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.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite “computing a verification value using the shared key and comparing the verification value with the second identity information value”. Claims 8 and 23 have similarly been amended to recite “computing… a verification value using the shared key and comparing the verification value with the first identity information value”. Although Applicant points to paragraphs 0555-0558 and 0562-0563 of the published application for support for the claims as amended, there is no mention in these paragraphs or elsewhere in the specification of a “verification value” or of “comparing” any values. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
A determination of a failure to comply with the enablement requirement is made considering the undue experimentation factors set forth in MPEP § 2164.01(a). In the present application, the factors which appear to weigh most heavily are the breadth of the claims (MPEP § 2164.08), the amount of direction provided by the inventor (MPEP § 2164.03), and the existence of working examples (MPEP § 2164.02). Amended Independent Claims 1, 8, 15, and 23 broadly recite “generating… using a key derivation function, first identity authentication information based on a shared key” and “computing a verification value using the shared key” or similar language. The phrases “using a key derivation function”, “based on a shared key”, and “using the shared key” are broad recitations, and the claims do not recite any details of the algorithms or equations used to compute the authentication information or the verification value. Although the specification generally discusses that the first identity authentication information may be generated based on a pre-shared key using a key derivation function (see paragraphs 0361-0364, for example), there appears to be no detail provided in the specification of how to implement such a key derivation function. The specification appears to have no specific algorithm or other working example of how the values are to be generated other than the equations in the cited paragraphs which essentially provide a mathematical equivalent of generating the values using a key derivation function. There appears to be no example of any key derivation function or how to enable the full scope of the claimed limitations. The lack of details or examples in any detail suggests that there is little direction provided by the inventor. Combined with the broad scope of the claims, this suggests that the enablement of the description is not commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP § 2164.08) and that undue experimentation would be required to make or use the invention based on the disclosure (MPEP § 2164.06).
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 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 “computing a verification value using the shared key” in line 14. However, the claim does not clearly define an algorithm to be used to compute such a verification value. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “computing… a verification value using the shared key” in line 13. However, the claim does not clearly define an algorithm to be used to compute such a verification value. The claim further recites “the second identity authentication information is generated based on the shared key” in lines 17-18. The claim does not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such identity authentication information. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “computing a verification value using the shared key” in line 17. However, the claim does not clearly define an algorithm to be used to compute such a verification value. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 21 recites “the first authentication failure counter” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Although Claim 16 recites an authentication failure counter, Claim 21 does not depend from Claim 16.
Claim 22 recites “the identifier of the second node” in line 3. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, although it appears that this may be intended to refer to the identity of the second node.
Claim 23 recites “computing… a verification value using the shared key” in line 17. However, the claim does not clearly define an algorithm to be used to compute such a verification value. The claim further recites “the second identity authentication information is generated based on the shared key” in lines 21-22. The claim does not clearly define an algorithm to be used to generate such identity authentication information. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 29 recites “the identifier of the first node” in line 3. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, although it appears that this may be intended to refer to the identity of the first node.
Claim 30 recites “send a second association request to the first node in response to a value of the second authentication failure counter being less than a second threshold” in lines 3-4. It is not clear when this is intended to occur in relation to the other functions of the apparatus or what would cause the counter to be greater than or less than the second threshold.
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 and not enabled or supported by the specification due to the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (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 1-5, 7-11, 13-19, 21-26, and 28-30 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 were cited in the previous Office actions.
Conclusion
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
