DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on November 24th, 2025.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (Pgs. 10~11, Step 2A Prong One), that the claims are not directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea for the reasons of amended claim 1 now reciting, “issuing a principal certificate to the substrate instance, the principal certificate being a digital certificate specifying a public key corresponding to a key pair.” Examiner respectfully point out that although a digital certificate is a functional application of cryptography, when used in the claim as a whole is still directed to an abstract idea. The claim as a whole merely obtains an identifier of a substrate instance in order to issue the principal certificate. This is akin to issuing a driver’s license after providing proof of identity (i.e., passport, social security, residency) at a local DMV office. The claim as a whole, recites only the idea of a solution or outcome devoid of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
None of the claim limitations improve the functioning of a computer or technology; are not applied with any particular machine; do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. These limitations automate the process of receiving a certificate after determining an identifier of a substrate instance. The amended claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or technology; are not applied with any particular machine; do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims, as currently constructed, are thus ineligible nor patentable in view of the rejections set forth below.
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 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1 and 11 recite:
Claims 1, 15, and 19: “performing a first fetch to obtain one or more of: (i) an identifier of a compartment that includes the substrate instance, or (ii) an identifier of the substrate instance; performing a second fetch to obtain an identifier of a tenancy that includes the substrate instance, based at least in part on one or more of: (i) the identifier of the compartment identified from the first fetch, or (ii) the identifier of the substrate instance identified from the first fetch; and issuing a principal certificate to the substrate instance, the principal certificate being a digital certificate specifying a public key corresponding to a key pair and including the identifier of the tenancy that includes the substrate instance.”
The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “cloud environment”, “one or more processors”, and “computer-readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the reciting “cloud environment”, “one or more processors”, and “computer-readable storage medium”, “performing…”, “performing…”, and “issuing” in the context of these claims encompasses concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information that can be performed mentally. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
1. The claims recite additional elements reciting, “cloud environment”, “one or more processors”, and “computer-readable storage medium”, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2. The claims recite additional element of “performing…a first fetch…”, “performing…a second fetch…”, and “issuing a principal certificate…”, which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because claims 1, 15, and 19 as a whole is silent regarding specific limitations directed to improving a computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or the Internet, nor do Applicants direct any attention to such specific limitations.
Accordingly, claims 1, 15, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 15, and 19 do 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 elements of “cloud environment”, “one or more processors”, and “computer-readable storage medium”, amount 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.
Further, the insignificant extra solution activity performing…a first fetch…”, “performing…a second fetch…”, and “issuing…”, simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2~14, 16~18 and 20
Claims 2~14, 16~18 and 20 recite elements/limitations that also fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as identified above.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 2~14, 16~18 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/H.K/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights