DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 05/15/2026. Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19 have been amended. Claims 2, 11, 13, 18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 are added. Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19-24 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection as set forth in the previous office action. Also Examiner maintains the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as well as the rejection under 35 USC 112(b). Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner with any further questions/concerns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered and persuasive to overcome the prior art rejections based on amendments filed on 05/15/2026.
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, 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, 10 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite in part:
a key issuance apparatus configured to generate and issue an encryption key;
a distribution apparatus comprising: at least a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the distribution apparatus to: generate share data by: presetting an integer n of 2 or greater and an integer threshold k satisfying 2 < k < n, the threshold k being a minimum number required to reconstruct the encryption key; generating, in an extension field, a (k-1)-degree polynomial in which the encryption key is assigned to coefficients of terms other than an intercept, using a block length of (k-1) bytes; and converting the encryption key into k or more coordinate points on the polynomial to generate the share data; verify validity of a transmission destination to which the share data is to be transmitted; and transmit the share data to the transmission destination in response to determining that the transmission destination is valid; and
a decryption apparatus comprising: at least a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the decryption apparatus to: verify validity of a transmission source from which the share data is received; receive the share data from the transmission source in response to determining that the transmission source is valid, and decrypt the encryption key using the share data received, as input.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19-24 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites – at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor…. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19-24 are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19-24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14-17, 19-24 are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: (…a key issuance apparatus configured to generate and issues…(in claim 1); the decryption apparatus decrypts… (in claims 3, 8, 17)…) in claims 1, 3, 8, 17. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 17 limitations “a key issuance apparatus configured to/the decryption apparatus decrypts…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no support for the structure that performs the function in the claim in the specification. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to key delivery system.
Kasahara et al (Pub. No. US 2007/0043769); “Content Data Delivery System, and Method for Delivering an Encrypted Content Data”;
-Teaches delivering an encrypted content data to a handheld device, said handheld device being configured to be connectable to a storage media that hold a media identifier unique to the storage media and a content key data used to decrypt the encrypted content data…see par. 28-31.
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 GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights