2025
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 submitted on 10/9/2025.Claims 1,6-8 and 10 are amended. Claims 1-10 are pending examination.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is drawn to a device, claim 6, is drawn to a method and claim 7 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium, claim 8 and 10 are drawn to a system. As such, claims 1, 7, 8 and 10 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong One: The claims recite: generating random numbers, exchanging authentication requests and responses, performing encryption and key derivation operations, determining validity of keys and communicating encrypted responses between devices. These steps describe secure communication and authentication using encryption and key exchange protocols, which is a concept similar to organizing human activity related to managing secure interactions between parties, which is a fundamental economic practice.
Step 2A, Prong Two; The claims only apply the abstract idea using generic computer components, such a processor, memory, key storage and communicator. Utilizing well-known encryption including public key encryption and perform conventional steps of random number generation, encrypted message and key derivation. The claims do not describe any improvements to the functioning of the computer, network or encryption process, nor providing any technical solution to a technological problem. The claims use standard computing components to implement secure communication process.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited limitations represent a generic implementation of secure authentication which do not render the abstract idea patent eligible.
2B, the additional elements such as generic computer components such as professor, memory, key storage, communicator and the standard cryptographic process such as key derivation functions and encryption, are described at a very high level or generality and are used in their ordinary conventional capacity.
The claims do not include additional elements that amounts to significantly more than he abstracts idea. The claims rely on generic computer components to perform conventional functions. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Ya’an Hu/Taniguchi) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding claims under 35 USC § 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that independent claims 1, 6-8 and 10 have been amended so that they a) are not directed to an abstract idea, b) are integrated into a practical application, and c) recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to a), the claims are directed to authenticating a wireless device using cryptographic challenge-response which is s security protocol and considered a fundamental practice in computer security and the court found to be an abstract (Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, authentication methods are abstract). The claims rely on random number generator, cryptographic operations, matching ciphertext. These are mathematical concepts/formulas under category of abstract ideas and similar to Electric Power Group of (collecting and analyzing data). The claims are directed to a process that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper (even in a slow manner). The claims are directed to the result of authentication achieved through generic cryptographic operations, and not to any specific technological improvement in authentication.
The claims are integrated into practical application.
Response to b), the claims recite standard computer components such as processor, memory, communicator, performing their conventional functions. The claims do not improve how computers, base stations or communication terminal’s function. They simply use the existing hardware to implement an authentication algorithm. Furthermore, the clams do not specify any improvement to computers or network functioning.
The claims recite significantly more.
Response to c), the claims utilize conventional cryptographic operations such as random number generator; authentication encryption; key derivation functions; challenge -response. The court have held that these are well understood, routine and conventional activity and does not constitute significantly more. The claims amount to instructions to implement authentication using generic computer components and well known and understood cryptographic technique, applied in a conventional manner. There is no inventive concept in the specific implementation.
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 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