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 International Application No. PCT/CN2023/096663, filed on May 26, 2023, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210628785.1, filed on Jun. 6, 2022, and Chinese Patent Application No. 202211049988.1, filed on Aug. 30, 2022. All of the aforementioned patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2025, 08/05/2025, and 04/07/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 12/04/2024. 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 Election/Restriction response received on 05/20/2026. In the response, claims 1-7, and 16-19 have been elected. Claims 8-15, and 20 have been withdrawn.
For this Office Action, claims 1-7, and 16-19 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 (Abstract Idea)
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 1-7, and 16-19 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 16 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a method”, and “a device” claims. Nevertheless, the claims still considered as abstract idea (i.e., combination of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, and 16 recite the abstract idea of:
determining, in response to a first operation, a first message authentication code based on a message sending time corresponding to the first operation, plaintext content corresponding to the first operation, and a first key corresponding to an electronic device (Mathematical and Mental Concepts: a human determines a message authentication code based on message sending time, plaintext content, and a first key corresponding to a device);
processing the first message authentication code based on a target authentication code length, to obtain a target authentication code (Mathematical and Mental Concepts: the message authentication code is processed by the human using mathematical algorithm based on target code length to obtain the target authentication code); and
generating a target message based on the target authentication code and encrypted plaintext content, and sending the target message to a [[server]] entity (Mathematical and Mental Concepts: the human generates a target message using the mathematical algorithm based on the target authentication code and encrypted plaintext content, and sending the target message and sends the target message to another entity).
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., mathematical algorithm to process the message authentication code) 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 claim are:
“A message communication method” (claim 1) and
“An electronic device” (claim 16).
The Detailed Analysis of Claim Limitations recites following steps:
Obtain data / Transform data / Propagate (Abstract Idea Risk): These steps often fall under "mental processes" and “mathematical concept” when applied to general business data. Simply applying "cryptographic techniques" is generally considered a conventional, well-known activity that does not, on its own, make a claim patent-eligible.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (see instant spec. Pregrant-Pub [0043-0046]) 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 additional elements identified above 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 skill 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 (instant spec. Pregrant-Pub [0043-0046] discloses that the functions of the disclosed claims can be implemented using generic computer(s)) 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.
The dependent claims 2-7, and 17-19 of respective independent claims 1, and 16 have been analyzed and fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the dependent claims recite mental processes which can be implemented by one or more human users using pen and paper. Thus, dependent claims also recite abstract idea and considered ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, and 16 recites the limitation "processing the first message authentication code based on a target authentication code length, to obtain a target authentication code" in 2nd limitation.
It is unclear the second recitation of “a target authentication code” is similar or different from the prior recitation.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be understood as follows:
“processing the first message authentication code based on a target authentication code length, to obtain [[a]] the target authentication code”.
Dependent claims inherit this deficiency.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “a red envelope” in claim 5, is unclear for an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernsen., (EP3654579A1) in view of Zhang et al., (US20160294986A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bernsen discloses:
A message communication method ([0023] These and other aspects of the invention will be apparent from and elucidated further with reference to the embodiments described by way of example in the following description and with reference to the accompanying drawings. Fig. 1 shows a communication system having a transmitter and a receiver in a network for sending and receiving messages and associated message authentication codes and for authenticating the received messages according to an embodiment of the invention; [0025] Fig. 1 shows two devices for communication in a network, one adapted for sending messages using the truncated MAC and the other adapted for receiving messages with the truncated MAC), wherein the method comprises:
determining, in response to a first operation, a first message authentication code based [[on a message sending time corresponding to the first operation]], plaintext content corresponding to the first operation, and a first key corresponding to an electronic device ([0041] The truncated MAC generator 122 collects all of the bits of the first message to be integrity protected and uses these as the input for a MAC algorithm, e.g. HMAC-SHA256. The complete first message or at least the bits of the first message to be used in the truncated MAC computation for next messages are stored in the message memory 125, which bits may or may not include the truncated MAC that the truncated MAC generator computed for this message. The key to be used for the MAC generation is provided to truncated MAC generator 122 by processor 123);
processing the first message authentication code based on a target authentication code length, to obtain a target authentication code ([0042] The truncated MAC generator 122 truncates the computed MAC to a truncated MAC, by taking any N bits from the MAC, e.g. the first N bits, where N is smaller than the MAC size. E.g. N can be 8 bit, while the MAC size is 256 bit for HMAC-SHA256); and
generating a target message based on the target authentication code and [[encrypted]] plaintext content, and sending the target message to a server ([0043] The truncated MAC generator 122 provides the transceiver 121 with the truncated MAC, so the transceiver can include the truncated MAC in the message to be sent. After inclusion of the truncated MAC in the message, the transceiver 121 sends the message to device 110 using communication 130).
Bernsen fails to disclose:
message sending time corresponding to the first operation; and encrypted plaintext.
However, Zhang discloses:
message sending time corresponding to the first operation ([0043] In one embodiment, the data is sent as follows. [0044] First, a current network transmission condition is obtained. Then, a transmission time required by each data message is computed according to the current network transmission condition, and a sending time of each data message is determined according to the transmission time, such that each data message may be sent at a corresponding sending time); and
encrypted plaintext ([0048] Alternatively, after receiving the first data message, the server sends a secret key to the client. After receiving the secret key, the client sends subsequent data messages to the server, in which the subsequent data message carry data encrypted using the secret key).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for providing message authentication code of Bernsen and include system of transmitting message using message sending time and encrypted message, as disclosed by Zhang.
The motivation to include the system of transmitting message using message sending time and encrypted message is to improve the safety of data transmission between the sending and receiving entities.
Regarding claim 16, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claims 2-7, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights