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 PCT International Application No. PCT/JP2022/003776, filed on Feb. 1, 2022, which is hereby expressly incorporated by reference into the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 was filed along with the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 06/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 06/06/2024. In the application, claims 1-17 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
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 1-17 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, and 17 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a system, and a method” claims. Nevertheless, the claims still are considered as Abstract Idea (i.e., Mental process) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, and 17 recite the abstract idea of:
(Claim 1) A dynamic authorization system comprising a client [[terminal]], an authorization server [a Security Officer] and a context reinforcement officer [[device]], wherein
the client terminal acquires a ticket including a scope to indicate an authorization condition, collects a context to indicate a state of the client terminal, sets the context in the ticket, and transmits the ticket (Mental process: a client receives a ticket, add authorization scope, gathers state of the client, and client updates the ticket with the authorization scope and state of the client information in the ticket and sends the ticket),
the authorization server receives the ticket, determines a condition element other than the context among one or more condition elements indicated in the authorization condition as reinforcement information, and requests the reinforcement information determined to the context reinforcement device (Mental process: the security Officer receives the ticket from the client and determines an element which needs to be used as reinforcement information and request the context reinforcement officer to determine reinforcement information),
the context reinforcement device transmits the reinforcement information requested to the authorization server (Mental process: the context reinforcement officer sends the reinforcement information to the security officer), and
the authorization server receives the reinforcement information, and verifies the scope based on the context and the reinforcement information (Mental process: the security officer receives the reinforcement information from the context reinforcement officer and verifies scope based on the context and the reinforcement information).
(Claim 17) A dynamic authorization method, wherein
by a client terminal, acquiring a ticket including a scope to indicate an authorization condition, collecting a context to indicate a state of the client terminal, setting the context in the ticket, and transmitting the ticket (Mental process: a client receives a ticket, add authorization scope, gathers state of the client, and client updates the ticket with the authorization scope and state of the client information in the ticket and sends the ticket),
by an authorization server, receiving the ticket, determining a condition element other than the context among one or more condition elements indicated in the authorization condition as reinforcement information, and requesting the reinforcement information determined (Mental process: the security Officer receives the ticket from the client and determines an element which needs to be used as reinforcement information and request the context reinforcement officer to determine reinforcement information),
by a context reinforcement device, transmitting the reinforcement information requested to the authorization server (Mental process: the context reinforcement officer sends the reinforcement information to the security officer), and
by the authorization server, receiving the reinforcement information, and verifying the scope based on the context and the reinforcement information (Mental process: the security officer receives the reinforcement information from the context reinforcement officer and verifies scope based on the context and the reinforcement information).
The claim generically recites the concept of Mental process where a client gathers its own authorization state information and scope of a context and send it to a security officer and in response to that the security officer transmit this information another person [reinforcement officer] to determine if the information provided by the client is valid or not. The other person checks the client information and sent it back to the security officer which verifies the received information from the other person.
The above limitations are steps which clearly fall into the Mental Process - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) bucket which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
As mentioned above, the steps of claim can be performed between two or more persons who can monitor client authorization request and verifies if the request is valid.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., mental process of an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion regarding verifying client configuration) is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“a dynamic authorization system, a client terminal, an authorization server, and a context reinforcement device”.
Recitation of these additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (PgPub instant spec. [0068-0068], [0112-0121] discloses that generic processor and memory is used to execute the steps of the invention) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims 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 claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the above identified additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (PgPub instant spec. [0068-0068], [0112-0121]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-16 recite a system claims and hence falls into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the claim fails to recite any limitations that create a difference in the 101 analyses as indicated for claim 1 because dependent claims merely recite steps which fall under a mental process where human users can perform the steps of these dependent claims and thus dependent claims are ineligible as well.
Overall analysis of the claims 1-17 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharif et al., US20090319795A1
Lee et al., US10542041B2
Innes et al., US20180007059A1
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 09/30/2025