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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 1/30/2026.
Priority
Examiner see the applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 202211382332.1 11/07/2022 but it is not in English. The certified copy docketed on 11/28/2023 must be provided in English in order to prefect and be granted the priority date.
Restriction
Examiner acknowledges the applicant election of Species C claims 5-8 in response to the election/restriction requirement, without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
All claims 5-8 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.
All claims 5-8 is indefinite and the examiner did not understand: Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are awkward and hard to understand at best and indefinite at worst.
Examiner did not understand regarding claim 5:
the real-name information security protection method comprising:
obtaining a unique registration interface code of a corresponding real- name information package provided by the platform;
generating a unique calling code according to the unique registration interface code, and storing the unique registration interface code and the unique calling code in an interactive server to authorize the platform, wherein the unique registration interface code is used as an account and a password of the platform; and
when a user logs in to the platform, if login is performed in an account manner, obtaining the unique registration interface code of the platform, and determining whether there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, wherein if yes, the login succeeds, or if no, the login fails; or
if login is performed in an ID authentication manner, acquiring to-be- verified ID information of the user and obtaining the unique registration interface code of the platform, matching the to-be-verified ID information with ID information stored in the real-name information package, and determining whether there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, wherein if the to-be-verified ID information successfully matches the ID information stored in the real-name information package, and there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, the login succeeds, otherwise the login fails.
Examiner did not understand:
How do you performed in an account manner versus performed in an ID authentication manner? What does that mean – what are the steps? Can you provide an example of what you mean?
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.
All claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 5 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A real-name information security protection method, applied to a real-name information package,
wherein the real-name information package is configured to stores a number, identity (ID) information of a user, a login password, a unique calling code, and a unique transaction number, the unique calling code being different from a mobile phone number in that the calling code is any character, the ID information being stored in an internal server, the internal server being called by an offline manual authentication department to verify a certificate offline only when the real-name information package is issued, the calling code and the transaction number being stored in an interactive server, the interactive server storing contents of an authenticated real-name information package for an external system to query for authentication, the login password being used for login verification when the user applies the real-name information package to a terminal device, and after successful verification, the corresponding terminal device is capable of invoking the ID information, the calling code, and the transaction number in the real-name information package, wherein multiple programs that process different procedures are stored in the real-name information package, and after application of the real-name information package to the terminal device, a corresponding program is directly invoked to process a related operation.
the real-name information security protection method comprising:
obtaining a unique registration interface code of a corresponding real- name information package provided by the platform;
generating a unique calling code according to the unique registration interface code, and storing the unique registration interface code and the unique calling code in an interactive server to authorize the platform, wherein the unique registration interface code is used as an account and a password of the platform; and
when a user logs in to the platform, if login is performed in an account manner, obtaining the unique registration interface code of the platform, and determining whether there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, wherein if yes, the login succeeds, or if no, the login fails; or
if login is performed in an ID authentication manner, acquiring to-be- verified ID information of the user and obtaining the unique registration interface code of the platform, matching the to-be-verified ID information with ID information stored in the real-name information package, and determining whether there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, wherein if the to-be-verified ID information successfully matches the ID information stored in the real-name information package, and there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, the login succeeds, otherwise the login fails.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “log in fails” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “real-name information package is configured to stores a number, identity (ID) information of a user, a login password, a unique calling code, and a unique transaction number, the unique calling code” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se 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 component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-8 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (U.S. Patent Pub 20090043681) in view of Clarke (U.S. Patent Pub 20140143120) or Xu (U.S. Patent 20210056535)
Re claim 5: Shoji discloses:
A real-name information security protection method, applied to a real-name information package, (see Shoji Fig 44 + Fig 52)
wherein the real-name information package is configured to stores a number, identity (ID) information of a user, a login password, a unique calling code, and a unique transaction number, the unique calling code being different from a mobile phone number in that the calling code is any character, the ID information being stored in an internal server, the internal server being called by an offline manual authentication department to verify a certificate offline only when the real-name information package is issued, the calling code and the transaction number being stored in an interactive server, the interactive server storing contents of an authenticated real-name information package for an external system to query for authentication, the login password being used for login verification when the user applies the real-name information package to a terminal device, and after successful verification, the corresponding terminal device is capable of invoking the ID information, the calling code, and the transaction number in the real-name information package, wherein multiple programs that process different procedures are stored in the real-name information package, and after application of the real-name information package to the terminal device, a corresponding program is directly invoked to process a related operation. (see Shoji Fig 44 A401-A404 + Fig 43 item A102, A107 + Fig 42 item A201-A206 + Fig 52 item S831)
the real-name information security protection method comprising: obtaining a unique registration interface code of a corresponding real- name information package provided by the platform; (see Shoji Fig 44 A401-A404 + Fig 43 item A102, A107 + Fig 42 item A201-A206 + Fig 52 item S831)
generating a unique calling code according to the unique registration interface code, and storing the unique registration interface code and the unique calling code in an interactive server to authorize the platform, wherein the unique registration interface code is used as an account and a password of the platform; and (see Shoji Fig 44 A401-A404 ++ Fig 43 item A102, A105+ Fig 42 item A201-A206 + Fig 52 item S837)
when a user logs in to the platform, if login is performed in an account manner, obtaining the unique registration interface code of the platform, and determining whether there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, wherein if yes, the login succeeds, or if no, the login fails; or (see Shoji Fig 44 A405-A413 + Fig 43 item A301, A117 + Fig 42 item A207-A211 + Fig 52 item S839-S843)
if login is performed in an ID authentication manner, acquiring to-be- verified ID information of the user and obtaining the unique registration interface code of the platform, matching the to-be-verified ID information with ID information stored in the real-name information package, and determining whether there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, wherein if the to-be-verified ID information successfully matches the ID information stored in the real-name information package, and there is the unique calling code bound to the unique registration interface code in the interactive server, the login succeeds, otherwise the login fails. (see Shoji Fig 44 A405-A413 + Fig 43 item A301, A117 + Fig 42 item A207-A211 + Fig 52 item S847-S850)
Although Shoji in view of Clarke or Xu does not explicitly have obtaining price, Clarke or Xu claims security system of real-name system and obtaining a price.
Specifically see Xu para 0207 + 0174 + 0209 + 0231 + Figure 12 item S201 + Clarke para 0095 + Fig 4A-4B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Shoji by adapting any features of Clarke or Xu.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Shoji teaches security system that is adapted in Clarke or Xu system see Xu para 0207 + 0174 + 0209 + 0231 + Figure 12 item S201 + Clarke para 0095 + Fig 4A-4B.
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
after the platform is authorized, further comprising: obtaining a calling code of the platform; and pairing a calling code of the user with the calling code of the platform, and storing the calling code of the user in the real-name information package and the interactive server, such that the user makes a single-line contact with the platform. (see Shoji Fig 44 A405-A413 + Fig 43 item A301, A117 + Fig 42 item A207-A211 + Fig 52 item S839-S843)
Re claim 7: see claim 1 +
further comprising: obtaining data information input by the user and information about multiple platforms; and publishing and sharing the data information on corresponding multiple platforms according to the information about the multiple platforms. (see Shoji Fig 19 + Fig 45 + Fig 44 A405-A413 + Fig 43 item A301, A117 + Fig 42 item A207-A211 + Fig 52 item S839-S843)
Re claim 8: see claim 1 +
further comprising: obtaining a collection price, a forwarding price, and a forwarding profit percentage that are of data information input by a shared user, wherein the shared user is a user who publishes and shares data information on the platform; obtaining a collection application and/or a forwarding application input by a target user, wherein both the collection application and the forwarding application comprise a transaction number of the shared user, a transaction password of the target user, and the data information; and updating, according to the collection application, the forwarding application, the collection price, the forwarding price, and the forwarding profit percentage, balance values in bank cards corresponding to the shared user and the target user, wherein both the bank card of the shared user and the bank card of the target user are pre-bound to a corresponding platform. (see Shoji Fig 44 A401-A404 + Fig 43 item A102, A107 + Fig 42 item A201-A206 + Fig 52 item S831 + Xu para 0207 + Figure 12 item S201 + Clarke para 0095 + Fig 4A-4B)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allen et al., U.S. Patent Pub 20020138401, discloses a securities transaction, such as a buy or sell order is transmitted to a securities exchange with an indicator requesting automatic execution.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693