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 3/2/2026.Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-17 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 1-17 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 claim recites a series of steps of managing an authentication process between devices, which includes setting up a session between a first device and a second device, performing sequential authentication steps on each device, transferring authentication information, and duplicating key information from one device to the other. When the claim is considered as a whole, the claimed invention is the concept of verifying a user’s identity across two devices and copying credential information from device to another. This is similar to a method of organizing and managing information which is a sequence of authentication and credential duplication steps that could be performed manually or with pen and paper in a manual security process.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The additional elements such as, a management device and computer, these are generic computing components recited at a high level without any specific technical details. Setting up a session, is generic and conventional network activity that does not reflect any particular technical improvement. Displaying first, second, third and fourth information on a screen, are steps that simply recite the display status information to a user as the authentication process progresses. Displaying information on a screen is well understood, routine, and conventional computer function. The claim does not specify how the information is displayed, what technical mechanism is used, or how the display itself solves any technical problem. These steps do not add technical weight tot eh claims. Transferring authentication information to the second device is a generic data transfer step. Transferring data from one device to another device is a fundamental and routine computer function. Duplicating key information tot eh second device is a generic data copying step. The claim does not specify any particular mechanism for how they key information is duplicated, protected during transfer or stored. Taken together, the additional elements simply apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions.
Step 2B.
The additional element in the claim is well understood, routine and conventional. Using generic computer to manage a process is conventional. Setting up a session between devices is a routine network function. Displaying status information on a screen is a routine output function. Transferring data between devices is a routine communication function. Duplicating data from one device to another device is a routine data management function. No element an singly or in combination adds anything beyond what was already well known and in common use at the time of the invention. The claim simply takes the abstract idea of sequentially authenticating a user and copying credentials information and instructs a generic computer to carry it out. Under Alice, this is not sufficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argues that the amended claim 1 recites specific technological steps including establishing a communication session between devices, acquiring authentication results, transferring authentication in formation and duplicating key information and therefore should not be characterized as a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A-prong 1, the claim still recites operations including, setting up a communication session between devices, acquiring authentication results, transferring authentication information, supplicating key information based on authentication results and displaying information indicating completion of authentication steps. These limitations describe managing authentication and transferring information between devices in order to duplicate key information associated with a user. such operations amount to collecting information, analyzing the information, and transmitting the information based on authentication results, which falls within the category of mental processes and certain methods or organizing human activity, such as identity verification and authorization management. The fact that the claim performs these steps using computer components does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category.
Applicant’s asserts that the amended claim includes specific technological steps such as: establishing a communication session between devices, transferring authentication information and duplicating key information. However, these steps simply describe the functional results of information processing and authentication management rather than a specific technological improvement. The recited operations amount to: obtaining authentication information, transmitting authentication information between devices, confirming authentication results and copying key information based on authentication. These are conceptual steps of managing authentication data and transferring credentials, which could be performed conceptually by humans using conventional tools or implemented on a generic system.
The claim recites components such as communication control, screen, transfer unit and duplication unit. These components are described in the claim at a high level of generality and simply perform their ordinary function, such as communication data, displaying information, transferring data and copying stored data. The claim does not recite any specific technological mechanism or improvement to computer functionality.
Step 2 A -Prong 2, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements simply implement the abstract idea using generic computing components performing conventional functions. The amended claim does not for instance improve any of the following: computer functionality; network communication technology; provide a new cryptographic technique or a new device architecture. Instead, the claim uses conventional devices to carry out the abstract idea of authentication management and credential duplication.
The applicant further argues that the office oversimplified the claim.
The examiner has considered the claim a whole. However, even when viewed collectively, the limitations amount o processing authentication information and transferring key information between devices based on authentication results, which remains an abstract idea concept implemented using generic computing elements.
The applicant argues that the amended claim provides improvement over traditional systems because it allows authentication information and key information to be duplicated to another device when a user changes terminal devices, instead of requiring the generation of new authentication information.
The examiner has considered the argument but is not persuaded. The claim generally describes verifying a user on a first device, transferring authentication information to a second device, and duplicating key information to the second device after authentication is completed. These steps describe a process of managing authentication information when a user changes devices. However, the claim does not appear to recite a specific technological improvement to computer systems or authentication technology. Instead, the claims describe using computer components to perform functions such as communicating between devices, transferring authentication information, and duplicating stored key information. These types of operations are common computer functions used to process and transfer information between devices. While the claimed method may provide a convenient way to manage authentication information when a user changes devices, the claim appears to implement this idea using general purpose computer components performing their normal functions. Therefore, the additional elements in the claim do not appear to provide an inventive concept that is sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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