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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/122227, filed on Sep. 28, 2022, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202111166931.5, filed on Sep. 30, 2021. The disclosures of the aforementioned applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application received on 07/02/2026. In the RCE, claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, 14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 6, 13, and 19 remain original. No new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-14, 17, and 19 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 8 and 14 have been reviewed and amendments have overcome the raised 35 USC § 112(b) rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, 14, and 17 have been reviewed, however claim language still recite an Abstract Idea. The amended claim language is directed to the abstract concepts of conditional data tracking, verifying capability criteria, and administrative notification/signaling (conditional authorization/rejection based on missing metadata).
Analysis of the Abstract Idea (Step 2A, Prong One)
Fundamental Concept: At their core, the steps involve receiving a request, checking whether a specific informational indication is present in that request, making a binary determination based on the presence or absence of that text/flag, and sending a rejection message containing a specific reason code if the flag is missing.
Analogy to Human/Business Process: This logic mirrors basic human administrative tasks, such as a clerk reviewing an incomplete application form, noting that a required certification checkbox is blank, and mailing back a standardized rejection notice stating "application denied due to lack of proof of capability." Human minds and pencil-and-paper systems can conceptually perform this basic logic.
Not an Improvement to Computer Functionality: The claim does not assert or specify an improvement to how computers or network elements operate internally (such as a novel memory layout, reduced hardware overhead, or accelerated routing architecture); it merely applies generic messaging rules within a communication system.
Practical Application & Inventive Concept (Step 2A Prong Two / Step 2B)
Generic Components: The limitations execute these steps using standard, off-the-shelf structural elements like an "authorization verification network element," "service consumer network element," and request/response messages.
Conventional Ordered Combination: Simply appending generic telecommunication infrastructure terms and functional message parsing to an otherwise abstract evaluation logic does not transform the concept into a patent-eligible practical application.
Based on above explanation, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 reciting an Abstract Idea and therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s amendments to claims have been reviewed and amendments have overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejection and therefore this rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 8, and 14 does fall into one of the four statutory categories of “method”, “apparatus”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storage” claims. Nevertheless, the claim(s) still is/are considered as abstract idea (i.e., Mental process) for the following prongs and reasons.
The claim recites an Abstract Idea for following reasons:
Mental or Generic Process: The steps involve receiving a request, checking for a specific piece of information (an indication of capability), making a determination based on that check, and sending a rejection message with a cause value. Humans can and do perform these types of logic checks mentally or through basic administrative rules.
Result-Oriented: The claim focuses on the what (rejecting a request because a capability flag is missing) rather than a specific, technical improvement to how a computer or network functions internally.
Generic Components: It uses generic network elements ("authorization verification network element," "service consumer network element") performing standard communication tasks without reciting an inventive, non-conventional computer configuration.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the abstract idea of:
receiving a request to invoke data belonging to a data owner;
determining whether the requester satisfies a capability requirement;
rejecting the request when the requester does not satisfy that requirement; and
communicating the rejection and its reason.
These limitations recite the abstract idea of:
Controlling access to data by determining whether a requesting party satisfies an authorization requirement and rejecting the request when the requirement is not satisfied.
More specifically, determining that the service consumer lacks the required capability because its request does not contain capability-indication information is an information-based evaluation or judgment. Rejecting the request applies the resulting access-control decision. Sending a response containing a cause value merely communicates the decision and its reason.
The Federal Circuit has held that receiving an access request, determining whether access should be granted, and granting or denying access constitutes the abstract idea of controlling access to resources. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1326–28 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Similarly, controlling access to data items was held abstract in PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316–17 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: No practical application
The additional elements include:
• an authorization verification network element;
• a service consumer network element;
• a communication system;
• a data invocation request message;
• an identifier of a data owner;
• capability-indication information;
• a data invocation response message; and
• a cause value.
Considered individually and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The authorization verification and service consumer network elements are functionally recited as generic components that receive information, evaluate a condition, and communicate a result. The claim does not recite a particular structure or technical configuration for these network elements.
The request and response messages merely gather the information needed to make the access-control decision and communicate the resulting decision. The identifier identifies the owner of the requested data, while the indication information and cause value are defined by the information they convey.
Although the claim determines lack of capability from the absence of indication information, it does not recite:
• a particular technical format for the indication information;
• a new signaling or communication protocol;
• an authentication or integrity-verification mechanism;
• a new data structure;
• a technical mechanism for enforcing deletion or termination of data processing; or
• an improvement to processor, memory, or network operation.
The claim therefore uses generic network elements and messages as tools for implementing the abstract access-control rule. Merely applying an abstract idea in a communication-system environment does not integrate the idea into a practical application. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). MPEP §2106
The claim also does not effect a transformation of a physical article or require a particular machine that meaningfully limits the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A.
Step 2B: Not significantly more
The claim is next considered to determine whether any additional element, individually or as an ordered combination, provides an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The network elements and communication system perform their ordinary functions of receiving messages, evaluating information, and sending responses. The potentially distinguishing rule—treating the absence of capability-indication information as indicating lack of capability—is itself part of the abstract authorization decision and cannot supply the inventive concept.
Similarly, the cause value merely communicates that the request was rejected because the requester lacks the required capability. Communicating the result and reason for an abstract decision is insignificant post-solution activity.
As an ordered combination, the claim performs the conventional sequence of:
1. receiving a request;
2. examining whether required information is present;
3. determining whether an authorization condition is satisfied;
4. rejecting the request when the condition is not satisfied; and
5. communicating the rejection and its reason.
This ordered combination does not recite an unconventional network architecture or a specific technological mechanism. Instead, it implements the abstract access-control rule using generically recited communication components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Overall analysis of the claim discloses controlling access to data by evaluating whether the requester satisfies a capability requirement and denying access when the requirement is not satisfied. The generic network elements, request and response messages, capability indication, and cause value neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights