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 12/12/2025. No claims are amended or added. Claims 1-28 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 1-28 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, the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of managing authentication credentials for integrating services between different domains. This falls within to “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of abstract ideas, specifically business relations/integration, as it relates to the business practice of securely connecting and managing relationships between different service providers. The claim recite “causing to be provided”, “receiving an indication”, “deploying” , locates” and “establishes’ are conventional functions of a generic computer components.
Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not impose meaningful limitations of the abstract idea that would transform it into a patent eligible application. The recited elements such as, electronic devices, integration development application, user device, connection management services, data center, integration runtime, connector code, and placeholders are only generic computer components that implement the abstract idea using conventional computer technology. The elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, the claims do not add specific limitation that is not well understood, routine and conventional in computer technology. The claims simply use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea of credential management and service integration.
Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements considered individually or in an ordered combination, amount to no more than generic computer implementation of the abstract idea. The claimed steps are well understood, routine and conventional activities in software integration. The claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the abstract idea is incorporates into a practical application and citing Ex parte Desjardins. Furthermore, the applicant’s states that
the USPTO provides examples that the court have indicated may show an improvement in computer technology including Artificial Intelligence. Finally, applicant states that the claim I is not similar to any examples that were decided by the court to be ineligible.
In response, first, consistent with the December 5, 2025 MPEP update and Ex Parte Desjardins, the specification has been fully considered. Even though the specification describes managing authentication credentials, enforcing permission policies, and integrating service domains, it does not disclose a technical improvement to computer functionality or another technical field. The claims simply apply policy-based rules and mappings to conventional computing components and authentication mechanisms, which is information management, not a technological improvement.
Second, Applicant refers to examples such as artificial intelligence that may, in some circumstances, indicate an improvement to computer functionality. However, the present claims do not recite artificial intelligence or other comparable technical features, such as a new algorithm, specific data structure improvement, enhanced processing techniques or any performance gains.
Third, applicant’s assert that claim 1 is not similar to examples identified by the courts as insufficient to show improvement in computer functionality. However, patent eligibility does not rely on whether a claim is closely resembles a particular prior example. Rather, the focus on whether the claim itself recites a specific technological improvement. In the current case, claim 1 describes functional steps for credential handling and permission enforcement using conventional computing components, without changing the way the computer operates. Therefore, even when considered in light of the December 5, 2025 MPEP update and Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and do not include inventive concept. The rejection under 35 U.S. C. 101 is maintained.
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