DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 5/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-18 are withdrawn. No Claims have been amended.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 5/20/2026: Applicant has amended the specification, and the corresponding objections have been withdrawn.
Interview
As claims are in condition for allowance other than outstanding 35 USC § 101 issues, Examiner contacted attorney for applicant Michael Wagner (Reg. No. 75,924) at (303)628-9568 to indicate that the arguments regarding the 101 rejections were not persuasive and that language indicating a practical application needed to be added to allow the application. Attorney for applicant indicated that they understood and would work on an amendment and contact Examiner with a proposed solution. After two weeks, Examiner has received no communicating regarding the necessary amendment and has not been able to get in contact with the attorney. Examiner was therefore forced to proceed with the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-11 and 19-20 that the claims do not explicitly recite a mathematical concept and therefore cannot be considered a mathematical concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performance of a hash is a mathematical concept, and the claims do not need to explicitly describe “mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols” for it to be considered so. Outside of the performance of the hash (mathematical concept) and the comparison of the hash values (another mathematical concept) there is no other significant functionality to render the claim to be considered more than an abstract idea. The claim is merely describing the calculation and comparison of data (with storage being an insignificant element of the process). As with any mathematical concept, a practical application is necessary for the invention to be considered more than a mere abstract idea, such as the “applying” functionality similar to that shown in dependent claims 12 and 13.
All other arguments presented by Applicant either repeat or rely upon the issues addressed above, and are also not persuasive for the reasons given above.
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 1-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a “computing device” comprising “at least one processor” and “memory”, the “computing device” performing “operations” that result in the generation of a “verification code” the entirety of which falls under the abstract idea enumerated grouping of mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.04(a)(2)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The entirety of the claim is directed towards mathematical calculations resulting in the generation of a “verification code”. The generated “verification code” is not being practically applied in any way (i.e. to be used to verify a user configuration). With regards to the “at least one processor” and “memory”, although not labelled as such these elements can be considered as processor/memory components of a general-purpose computer as the functionality to generate the “verification code” (i.e. the mathematical concept) can be performed by a general-purpose computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because computing devices, processors and memory, can be considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional elements of a general-purpose computer.
Claims 2-11 further fail to recite any meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 issues of Claim 1, discussed above, and are also rejected.
Claims 12-13 provides meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically, the comparison of verification codes and application of a configuration based on the comparison.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a “method” that result in the generation of a “verification code” the entirety of which falls under the abstract idea enumerated grouping of mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.04(a)(2)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The entirety of the claim is directed towards mathematical calculations resulting in the generation of a “verification code”. The generated “verification code” is not being practically applied in any way (i.e. to be used to verify a user configuration). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “replacing” (i.e. “storing”), can be considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional elements of a general-purpose computer.
Claim 20 further fails to recite any meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 issues of Claim 1, discussed above, and is also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-11 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, in combination, a computing device for verifying user-selected configuration settings, in which a first hash configuration (detailing how to perform hash, hash input order, inputs types, algorithm, etc.) is received, after which a first request to change user configuration settings is received and a first verification code is generated based on the first hash configuration and configuration data received in the first request, after which the verification code is stored, the steps are repeated again with a second hash configuration and a second change request, in the specific manner and combination as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19 and its dependent claims, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, in combination, a method performed at a computing device, in which a verification code is generated by hashing a set of inputs comprising “configuration data associated with a configuration setting, a configuration item, a unique identifier associated with a user of the computing device, a timestamp associated with the configuration data, and a constant string”, the verification code is then used to replace a preexisting value in memory, in the specific manner and combination as recited in claim 19.
Conclusion
No new prior art is made of record.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, 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, Rupal 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.
/ERIC W SHEPPERD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
ERIC W. SHEPPERD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights