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 2/2/2026. Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, are amended. are amended, claims 2, 8 and 11 are cancelled. Consequently, claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 12-16 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, 3-7, 9-10, and 12-16 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.
The claims are directed to abstract idea of identity authentication using cryptographic operations, which falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category specifically commercial or legal interactions and Mathematical concepts of Cryptographic algorithms and signature generation. The steps of the claim 1 describe the fundamental concepts of performing collaborative signature identity authentication; obtaining a partial signature when authentication succeeded; generating a full signature from the partial signature and performing joint identity authentication with the full signature.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The claims only use the generic computer components such as intelligent terminal, collaborative signature server, identity management system, application service, identity cipher machine, to perform conventional operations. The claims do not improve computer functionality, technology or functioning of the computer itself. Do not apply the abstract idea with any particular machine or transformation beyond well understood, routine and conventional activity, the claims simply implement the abstract idea on generic computer equipment. The components are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide technological improvement.
Step 2B: the claims do not recite any specific technological improvement, any unconventional computer architecture or processing technique nor any particular implementation details that would transform the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. The claims amount to nothing more than implementing authentication and cryptographic techniques on generic computer equipment, which is insufficient under Alice-Mayo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
The applicant argues the claims describe a specific solution where a terminal gets a key fragment through identity management system.
Response: The steps of requesting and receiving fragments through an intermediary system are functional description of information flow. They do not describe how the system achieves this in any technical specific way. The claim language essentially says “request a key, receive a key” which is conventional client-server interaction applied to known cryptographic technique. Simply routing a known operation (key distribution) through an intermediate system does not automatically create patent eligible subject matter. The arrangement of conventional components in a conventional way is not enough under Alice.
The applicant argues the claims integrate the Exception into a Practical Application.
Response: The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. While the applicant contends that amended claim 1 as whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not add meaningful limits beyond applying the abstract idea in a technological environment. The steps of transmitting identity information, receiving key fragments and performing verification reflect generic computer functions that apply the abstract concept of authentication without reciting hoe the technology achieves any improvement. Simply performing authentication steps across networked components does not constitute integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
The applicant argues the claims provide a technical improvement.
Response: Applicant’s argument that the claims reflect a technical improvement in the field on security authentication has been considered but is not found persuasive, The alleged improvement is described in a functional term rather than being included in the claim language itself. The claim recites what the system accomplished without specifying the technical means by which any improvement over conventional authentication methos is achieved. Furthermore, the components recited in the claim such as the intelligent terminal, collaborative signature server, and identity management system are performing their routine and conventional functions. An improvement to the practice of authentication, without more, reflects an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than to the technology.
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
Prosecution Insights