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
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 1/28/2026. Claims 1,4,6,10,12, 15 and 17 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 13 and 14 are cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending examination. Consequently, 1, 4-12, and 15-20 are pending.
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, 4-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One: claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of selectively authenticating portions of software packages and communicating data about those packages before complete authentication is finished. This concept falls within the “certain methods or organizing human activity” category of abstract ideas, specifically organizing and sequencing authentication operations. This is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v Alstom (collecting, analyzing and displaying data). The clams describe what to accomplish (authenticate a portion, communicate data before full authentication) without reciting how to achieve technical improvement. The independent claim recites, determining software packages to authenticate; authenticate a portion of a first package (not the entirety) and communicate data about the package before full authentication. This is a fundamental practice of organizing authentication sequences- a process that be performed mentally or with pen and paper by tracking which packages have been partially checked and what information to communicate about them.
Step 2A-prong Two: The claims describe the desired result (partial authentication with early data communication) but do not explain how this result is technically achieved or what makes it an improvement over the conventional authentication systems. The claims lack of technical details since they do not explain the technical mechanism of partial attention, or algorithms or authentication protocols that are used.
Step 2B: the claims do not include additional elements individually or in ordered combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims lack an inventive concept because they recite well understood, routine and conventional components and operations. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the following:
The claims cannot be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper according to (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(III), SRI v Cisco).
Response. The rejection is not based only on the “mental process” grouping. Even if the limitations (e.g. authentication software packages) are impractical for human to perform manually, the claims still fall within certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically, access control; authorization sequencing, conditional validation before execution, managing when information is exposed. An abstract idea does not become non abstract because it is performed in a computer or involves data too large for human to practically process. The mental process grouping includes processes that are conceptually performable, even it not practically scalable. The concept of the claim is partially verifying something before allowing limited disclosure, and fully verifying before authorization control. This is conceptually similar to stages approval or staged verification, which is a form of authorization control, so even if not strictly a “mental process”, it still fits under abstract ideas involving security validation and access management. Therefore, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A.
The claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response. To integrate into a practical application, the claims must improve the computer functionality itself, or improve another technology or apply the idea in a meaningful way beyond simply implementing it on generic machine. The current claims recite, a processor, a memory, software packages, authentication and communication. However, there is no specific authentication algorithm is claimed, no specific data structure is claimed, no specific hardware configuration is claimed, no structural change to the gaming machine architecture is required. The claims describe what result is achieved, not how it is technologically achieved. Simply performing staged authentication on a gaming machine does not automatically integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applying an abstract idea in a particular technological environment (a gaming machine) is insufficient.
3-The claims solve a recognized technical problem, that is extended reboot time in gaming machine.
Response. The claims must recite the specific technical mechanism that achieves that improvement. Currently the claims recite partial authentication; communication prior to full authentication, but they do not recite a specific boot architecture, specific manifest structure, specific memory constraint solution or specific concurrency model. Instead, the claims recite functional results (Electric Power Group, Interval Licensing, Two-Way Media). Stating a desired performance improvement without reciting a specific technological implementation does not render a claim eligible.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443