DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The present application claims foreign priority of INDIA 202241057578 filed on 10/07/2022. The foreign priority is granted.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards identifying invalid certificates based on analyzing one or more certificate attributes and requesting a certificate update when the certificate is deemed invalid. The concept can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-18 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards identifying invalid certificates based on analyzing one or more certificate attributes and requesting a certificate update when the certificate is deemed invalid. The concept comprises receiving a check certificate request message, accessing one or more certificate attributes, determining validity of the certificate based on the one or more certificate attributes, and transmitting an update certificate request message upon determining the certificate is invalid. These process steps can be performed mentally. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., a server system) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mental processing grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claim 1 recites servers as additional elements. Independent claim 10 recites a server system comprises at least one processor and memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving request message, accessing certificate attributes to determine whether the associated certificate is valid, and transmitting a request message. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 do not recite any additional element. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, the present claims only recite server system comprises a processor coupled with a memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving request message, accessing certificate attributes to determine whether the associated certificate is valid, and transmitting a request message. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Response to Argument
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the claimed invention is intended to address a problem in 3DS authentication process during card-not-present (CNP) transactions, where a certificate associated with an authentication server is deemed by a plug-in server to be invalid would cause the plug-in server to drop or decline payment transaction even when the transaction is authorized by the authentication server. Applicant’s solution is to access and evaluate one or more attributes of the certificate to determine whether the certificate is valid, and transmitting an update certificate request message to the authentication server in response to determining the certificate is invalid.
Examiner first points out that the independent claims 1 and 10 do not limit the claims to 3DS authentication process during card-not-present application. Claims 1 and 10 are directed to validating any type of certificate. Only claim 2 and 11 have been amended to recite 3DS payment network and the transaction being a card-not-present payment transaction. However, even with the limitation in claim 2 and 11, the solution provided by the claims is nothing more than validating a received certificate based on one or more unspecified attributes, and transmitting an update certificate request message when the certificate is determined to be in valid. This process can be performed mentally by a human. Claim 4, for example, provides more details with regards to the certificate validation process – simply checking whether the certificate validity period has expired. This simple validation process can be easily performed mentally by human. When certificate is determined to be invalid, a human staff can simply send a request to update the certificate. As such, the computer implementation is merely an extra-solution, and the present claims do not improve the functionality of computer. Therefore, the present claims do not integrate the abstract concept of “identifying invalid certificates based on analyzing one or more certificate attributes and requesting a certificate update when the certificate is deemed invalid” into a practical application.
Applicant also argued that receiving a check certificate request message after a plug-in server detects an invalid certificate is unconventional. Examiner disagrees. The limitation means the plug-in server first performs a validation check on certificates, upon detecting an invalid certificate, the plug-in server sends a request to another server to validate the certificate again. Requesting another computer or person that is specialized in validating certificate to double check the validity of the certificate does not require unconventional computer function or hardware arrangement. The plug-in server only needs to transmit a message over network. According to MPEP 2016.5(d), transmitting data over network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 05/27/2025, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the cited prior arts do not explicitly teach “receiving, by a server system, a check certificate request message from a plug-in server upon detecting by the plug-in server that a certificate associated with an authentication server that was received by the plug-in server during a secured electronic communication related to a transaction in invalid, the check certificate request message comprising at least a message reference identifier”, as recited in amended claim 1 and 10. Examiner has conducted updated search, and cannot find a prior art. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
AUG-2025