DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/062,730 filed on 02/25/2025.
Claims 1, 14 and 18 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are
pending in this application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO restrictions are warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO foreign priority claimed at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 02/25/2025, 05/16/2026 and 07/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 02/25/2025 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the drawings filed on 02/25/2025 have been accepted.
Specification
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant's specification filed on 02/25/2025 has been accepted.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Applying the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as outlined in MPEP § 2106 to claims 1, 10 and their corresponding dependent claims:
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes
Claims 1 – 13, A method for managing operation of a data processing system, the method comprising:
Thus, the examination turns to Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (whether the claim recites a judicial exception):
Under MPEP §2106.04(a) and the 2019 PEG, claim 1 recites abstract idea from two enumerated groupings: (i) mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind). Offending clauses and explicit category mapping:
Mental processes (observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in the human mind)
making a determination, by a management agent of the data processing system and while in operable communication with a vendor certificate repository hosted by a remote entity, regarding whether a store of trusted certificates hosted by the data processing system is to be updated; (Category: observation/data gathering. Rationale: receiving/reading data at intake and output that can be done mentally or by consulting a log/record; MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Conclusion for Prong 1: Claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the “mental processes” groupings. Prong 1. See MPEP §2106.04(d); Versata, 793 F.3d 1306.
Thus, the examination turns to Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim does not integrate the exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP §§2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)–(h).
No improvement to computer functionality or another technology (MPEP §2106.05(a)). The specification asserts benefits (e.g., During the startup, a startup manager (e.g., a basic input/output system (BIOS)) of the data processing system (and/or any other entity) may perform tasks such as: (i) obtaining cryptographically verifiable certificate chains from the hardware components (e.g., devices), and (ii) performing certificate analysis processes using the certificate chains to establish trust by the data processing system in the devices.; Spec ¶[0012]) but claim 1 does not recite any specific technical mechanism effecting such improvements. Such as for e.g. including known trusted root certificates for devices of the data processing system.
No particular machine (MPEP §2106.05(b)). The claim’s “the step of perofrming…” (claim 1), and “A method for managing….” is generic.
No transformation (MPEP §2106.05(c)). The steps of performing, evaluating, and managing…, operation, exporting do not transform an article.
Mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Recitations such as “A method for managing operation…” are generic in nature, thus elements implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)). Steps such as “A method for managing operation….” are data gathering or post-solution actions that append/apply the result of the mathematical/ mental determination.
Field-of-use (MPEP §2106.05(h)). Limiting the concept to a “A method for managing operation….” merely ties the abstract idea to a technological field without a meaningful limitation.
Dependent claims (2-13) add use-case outcomes—e.g., further the identification…, reference to the identification…., the obtaining, the modifying and/or the performing —that further fall within “mathematical concepts,” and do not add a specific technological mechanism that changes how the computer or trusted computing environment operates.
Accordingly, Step 2A, Prong 2 is not satisfied.
Thus, the examination turns to Step 2B.
Step 2B (whether the claim recites “significantly more” than the exception):
Evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) at the time of filing. See Berkheimer Memorandum; MPEP §2106.05(d), (f).
Appropriate action required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 08/28/2026
Prosecution Insights