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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims and response/remarks filed on 29 October 2025
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 3-4, 11-13, 16 and 18-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-15, 17, and 21-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-15, 17, and 21-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 22; Claim 9, line 24; and Claim 17, line 23 recite “in response to execution of the trip plan. This appears to be a typographical error of “in response to the execution of the trip plan”.
Claim 1, line 25; Claim 9, line 27; and Claim 17, line 26 recite “in response to execution of the trip plan. This appears to be a typographical error of “in response to the execution of the trip plan”.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 10, 14-15 and 21-29 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 9, and 17. Therefore, claim(s) 2, 5-8, 10, 14-15 and 21-29 objected to.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-15, 17, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 21-29 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), claims 9-10, 14-15 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., an apparatus), and claims 17 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-15, 17, and 21-29 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
extracting a plurality of trip activity requests associated with a plurality of entities, wherein the plurality of entities comprises a first entity located at a first location and a second entity located at a second location;
retrieving, based on the plurality of trip activity requests, a plurality of trip activities, wherein the plurality of trip activities comprises at least a first trip activity associated with the first entity and a second trip activity associated with the second entity;
obtaining a trip plan based on the plurality of trip activities, wherein generating the trip plan comprises inputting a plurality of trip activity parameters associated with each respective trip activity of the plurality of trip activities to determine that at least the first trip activity and the second trip activity can be executed during the trip plan;
a first rule set associated with the plurality of trip activities;
receiving, in response to the execution of the trip plan, first trip activity data indicative of whether the first trip activity has met or exceeded a first minimum quality criteria;
receiving, in response to the execution of the trip plan, second trip activity data indicative of whether the second trip activity has met or exceeded a second minimum quality criteria;
inputting the first trip activity data to encrypt the first trip activity data;
inputting the second trip activity data to encrypt the first trip activity data;
transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to generating and executing a trip plan. This is considered to be an abstract idea because generating a trip plan based on trip requests from a plurality of entities is managing the personal interactions between people, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): entity computing devices, a first entity computing device, and a second entity computing device, a trip plan management apparatus, configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from the first entity computing device; configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from the second entity computing device, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model; and transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity computing device and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity computing device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1 also recites causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan. This additional element does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity because it is mere data gathering because the execution of the trip is merely just a transmission of the trip plan and the first rule set (i.e. data) to the vehicle (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 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(s) of entity computing devices, a first entity computing device, and a second entity computing device, a trip plan management apparatus, configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from the first entity computing device; configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from the second entity computing device, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model; and transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity computing device and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity computing device does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the additional element of causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan is merely just receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities (see “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network” in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 8, and 21 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefore claim(s)2, 8 and 21 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 5 and 25-28 further recite(s) the additional element(s): the plurality of encryption models comprises at least one of a symmetric encryption model (claim 5), an asymmetric encryption model (claim 5), a block cypher encryption model (claim 5 and 25), a stream cipher encryption model (claim 5), or an image encryption model (claim 5 and 25), a first public key and a first private key corresponding to the first encryption model (claim 26), a second public key and a second private key corresponding to the second encryption model (claim 26), a first entity-specific encryption database (claim 27), a second entity-specific encryption database (claim 27), encrypting a second portion of the first trip activity data using a third encryption model (claim 28). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 5 and 25-28 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 further recites the additional elements: causing the vehicle to update the execution of the trip plan to execute the trip activity modification request during the execution of the trip plan. These additional elements are parallel in nature to the limitation “causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on the first rule set by at least providing the trip plan and the first rule set to the vehicle” and are therefore ineligible. These additional elements alone or in combination do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Dependent claim 7 further recites the additional elements: causing a second vehicle to execute a second trip plan based on a second rule set by inputting the second trip plan and the second rule set into the second vehicle and causing a third vehicle to execute a third trip plan based on a third rule set by inputting the third trip plan and the third rule set into the third vehicle. These additional elements are parallel in nature to the limitation “causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on the first rule set by at least providing the trip plan and the first rule set to the vehicle” and are therefore ineligible. These additional elements alone or in combination do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Claim 9 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 9. Furthermore, claim 9 recites the following additional elements: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions; entity computing devices, a first entity computing device, and a second entity computing device, a trip plan management apparatus, configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from the first entity computing device; configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from the second entity computing device, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model; and transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity computing device and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity computing device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 also recites causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan. This additional element does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity because it is mere data gathering because the execution of the trip plan is merely just a transmission of the trip plan and the first rule set (i.e. data) to the vehicle (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the additional element of causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on the first rule set by at least providing the trip plan and the first rule set to the vehicle is merely just receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities (see “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network” in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 9 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 9. Therefore claim(s) 10 are ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 further recites the additional elements: causing the vehicle to update the execution of the trip plan to execute the trip activity modification request during the execution of the trip plan. These additional elements are parallel in nature to the limitation “causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on the first rule set by at least providing the trip plan and the first rule set to the vehicle” and are therefore ineligible. These additional elements alone or in combination do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Dependent claim 15 further recites the additional elements: causing a second vehicle to execute a second trip plan based on a second rule set by inputting the second trip plan and the second rule set into the second vehicle and causing a third vehicle to execute a third trip plan based on a third rule set by inputting the third trip plan and the third rule set into the third vehicle. These additional elements are parallel in nature to the limitation “causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on the first rule set by at least providing the trip plan and the first rule set to the vehicle” and are therefore ineligible. These additional elements alone or in combination do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Claim 17 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 17. Furthermore, claim 17 recites the following additional elements: a computer program product; at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor…; entity computing devices, a first entity computing device, and a second entity computing device, a trip plan management apparatus, configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from the first entity computing device; configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from the second entity computing device, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model; and transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity computing device and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity computing device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 17 also recites causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan. This additional element does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity because it is mere data gathering because the execution of the trip is merely just a transmission of the trip plan and the first rule set (i.e. data) to the vehicle (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the additional element of causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan is merely just receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities (see “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network” in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 17 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 22-24 and 29 further recite(s) the additional element(s): an autonomous vehicle (claim 22), a plurality of executable program code segments (claim 23), a rules engine (claim 23), a connection manager configured to switch from a first communication system to a second communication system based on a signal strength associated with the first communication system (claim 24), a first interface (claim 29), and a second interface (claim 29). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 22-24 and 29 is/are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-15, 17, and 21-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The present invention is directed towards an adaptive trip activity and data security management system. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 teaches the novel and non-obvious features of:
extracting, a plurality of trip activity requests associated with a plurality of entity computing devices, wherein the plurality of entity computing devices comprises a first entity computing device located at a first location and a second entity computing device located at a second location;
retrieving, based on the plurality of trip activity requests, a plurality of trip activities,
wherein the plurality of trip activities comprises at least a first trip activity associated with the first entity computing device and a second trip activity associated the second entity computing device;
obtaining a trip plan based on the plurality of trip activities, wherein generating the trip plan comprises inputting a plurality of trip activity parameters associated with each respective trip activity of the plurality of trip activities into a trip plan management apparatus to determine that at least the first trip activity and the second trip activity can be executed during the trip plan;
causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on a first rule set associated with the plurality of trip activities;
receiving, in response to the execution of the trip plan, first trip activity data indicative of whether the first trip activity has met or exceeded a first minimum quality criteria;
receiving, in response to the execution of the trip plan, second trip activity data indicative of whether the second trip activity has met or exceeded a second minimum quality criteria;
configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from the first entity computing device;
configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from the second entity computing device, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model;
inputting the first trip activity data into the first entity encryption model to encrypt the first trip activity data;
inputting the second trip activity data into the second entity encryption model to encrypt the first trip activity data; and
transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity computing device and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity computing device.
The examiner notes that the trip activity data meeting or exceeding a minimum quality criteria distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art. While trip activity data is known, the specification that the trip activity data meets or exceeds a minimum quality criteria and is encrypted/transmitted is novel. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention:
Fukunaga (US 20210116940 A1) teaches executing a trip plan comprising multiple trip activities and based on a rule set, but is silent to encrypting based on the user configured encryption models and the trip activity data being indicative of whether or not a trip activity has met or exceeded a minimum quality criteria.
Wu (US 20230259925 A1) teaches a plurality of encryption models for encrypting data based on the configuration indication of a user, but is silent to executing a trip plan and minimum quality criteria.
Primya (see attached NPL) teaches generating a tailored trip plan for a vehicle based on a user, but is silent to encrypting based on the user configured encryption models.
Chan (US 20210365043 A1) teaches generating a rule set for the movement of an autonomous vehicle during a trip but is silent to configuring encryption models based on the configuration indication of a user and minimum quality criteria.
Neither Fukunaga, Wu, Primya, nor Chan anticipate or render obvious:
receiving, in response to the execution of the trip plan, first trip activity data indicative of whether the first trip activity has met or exceeded a first minimum quality criteria;
receiving, in response to the execution of the trip plan, second trip activity data indicative of whether the second trip activity has met or exceeded a second minimum quality criteria;
configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from the first entity computing device;
configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from the second entity computing device, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model;
inputting the first trip activity data into the first entity encryption model to encrypt the first trip activity data;
inputting the second trip activity data into the second entity encryption model to encrypt the first trip activity data; and
transmitting the encrypted first trip activity data to the first entity computing device and the encrypted second activity data to the second entity computing device.
Assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 12-14, filed 29 October 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-10, 14-15, 17, and 21-29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the claimed features do not recite an abstract idea; 2) the claims as a whole are integrated into a practical application; and 3) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the applicant argues the claims do not recite a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0002] of the instant specification explains the invention is directed “to facilitate[ing] the execution of various trip activities associated with multiple respective entities by a vehicle”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Facilitating a trip activity using a vehicle is considered managing interactions between people because it manages the assignment of tasks from an entity to vehicles/drivers. Therefore, the invention manages the interaction between the entity requesting completion of a task and the entity that is completing the tasks. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. The machines that are used to facilitate execution of the task (i.e. the first encryption model, second encryption model, etc.) are additional elements being described at a high level. As claimed, how the encryption model performs the encryption is very high level and could be performed in the same way as a human would perform the encryption by hand. Furthermore, causing a vehicle to execute the trip plan based on the first rule set by at least providing the trip plan and the first rule set to the vehicle is an additional element being described at a high level. The claims do not specify how the vehicle executes the trip plan once it receives the trip plan and rule set. As claimed, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a vehicle executing a trip plan includes a driver driving the vehicle in accordance with the trip plan. Therefore, the claims do not recite a specific machine. The Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea. Additional elements are further analyzed in step 2A, prong 1, and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test for eligibility.
Regarding argument 2, the applicant argues the claims as a whole are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite specific technical improvements over existing systems. In particular, the Applicant argues the claims implement a multi computing entity framework in which encryption models can be configured differently in accordance with the specific needs of particular computing entities. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. How the encryption occurs is claimed at a high level. Specifically, the claims recite:
configuring a first encryption model based on a first model configuration indication received from a first entity computing device associated with the first entity;
configuring a second encryption model based on a second model configuration indication received from a second entity computing device associated with the second entity, wherein the first entity encryption model is different from the second entity encryption model;
encrypting at least a portion of the first trip activity data using the first entity encryption model and at least a portion of the second trip activity data using the second encryption model;
The encryption as claimed is high level and appears to be a generic cryptography, since the steps of the encryption are not explained. MPEP 2106.05(h) recites:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
General cryptography is simply limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technology use which does not improve the system beyond what is inherent for the field of use (i.e. cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Regarding argument 3, the applicant argues the additional elements would constitute as significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed features provide an improvement to the technology of the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in argument 2, the claims recite generic cryptography which simply limits the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technology use. This does not improve the system beyond what is inherent for the field of use (i.e. cryptography) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore the Examiner maintains the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
With regards to claims 9 and 17 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their similarities to claim 1. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claim 1. Therefore, claims 9 and 17 remain rejected. With regards to claims 2, 5-8, 10, 14-15 and 21-29 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1, 9, and 17. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1, 9, and 17. Therefore, claims 2, 5-8, 10, 14-15 and 21-29 remain rejected.
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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628