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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed June 04, 2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 1-7 have been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s remarks filed June 04, 2026 on p. 7-8 regarding the teachings of Ghabel and Alawadi are found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 04, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following remarks:
Claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 has been amended. It is respectfully submitted that for at least the amendments herein that the rejections under § 101 are overcome. Allowance of the pending claims is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection below, the claims are not eligible under the Alice/Mayo framework. Examiner notes that, according to Specification [0061], the only described function of the cryptographic circuit carries out a hash function, which does not transform the claimed into patent eligible subject matter. Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“A hash identifier is a generic and routine concept that does not transform the claims to a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.”); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th at 1316, 1318-19 (claims using "a generic hash function, a server system, or a computer" did not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea of using content-based identifiers to manage data).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 8-13 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 8, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of authenticating a product using a signature of an asymmetric pair of keys, which is a mathematical concept and method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical relationship by reciting generating a signature based on an asymmetric key pair. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting using a marking of a product to authenticate the product. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The mathematical concept and method of organizing human activity of “authenticating a product using a signature of an asymmetric pair of keys,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: sending transaction data to a tag, generating a signature of a transaction using a key pair, transmitting signature data, and recording a transaction. The mere nominal recitation of a radio frequency tag, a cryptographic circuit, an electronic device, a server, and a blockchain does not take the claim of the mathematical concept or method of organizing human activity groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 8 recite the additional elements: a radio frequency tag, a cryptographic circuit, an electronic device, a server, and a blockchain. These additional elements of a radio frequency tag, a cryptographic circuit, an electronic device, a server, and a blockchain limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The receiving and transmitting radio frequency tag data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of exchanging identification data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of authenticating in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing authentication process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting an electronic device and a server. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), and storing and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a radio frequency tag (Specification [0027], [0036]), a cryptographic circuit (Specification [0038], [0061]), an electronic device (Specification [0039]), a server (Specification [0040]), and a blockchain (Specification [0027]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a radio frequency tag, a cryptographic circuit, an electronic device, a server, and a blockchain. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting exchanging data from a radio frequency tag. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting product data. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 5 and 11, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 5 and 11, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an application (Specification [0034]) and a server (Specification [0040]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 5 and 11 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting an application and a server. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2-4, 7, 9-10, and 12-13, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art already made of record is Ghabel (U.S. P.G. Pub. 11,991,284 B1), Alawadi (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2024/0250828 A1), and Chua et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0169154 A1).
In addition to the closest prior art already made of record the following is made of record: Ling (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2025/0390689 A1), Chen (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2024/0089103 A1), Colson (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0348363 A1), Bulawski (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2021/0103938 A1), Sriram (U.S. 9,436,923 B1), and Lowe (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2024/0054460 A1).
Ling discloses an NFC signing a nonce but the tag does not sign the transaction data (Ling [0036] In one embodiment, after scanning the NFC or QR Code with the app, the app sends the public key of the NFC/QR Code to the server and the server generates a nonce and sends it to the app which transmits the nonce to the NFC/QR Code which signs it with its private key and returns a signature to the app.)
Chen discloses an NFC using public key private key infrastructure but the tag does not sign the transaction data (Chen [0026]-[0027] The device public key, device private key, and device digital signature may be generated by an NFC flashing tool configured to read the hardware information of the device and generate the keys and the digital signature based on the hardware information).
Colson discloses a private key of 3D printed blockchain enabled packaging is used for authentication of a transaction, but the packaging does not sign the transaction data (Colson [0167]).
Bulawski teaches a private key on an NFC tag used to generate a signature but the signature is not a signature of the transaction data (Bulawski [0028] private key on an NFC tag generates a signature).
Sriram discloses an RFID label generating a signature but the signature is not a signature of the transaction data (Sriram (Col. 18 Lines 60-67) private key can be embedded as an RFID label attached to the package and used generate a cryptographic signature).
Lowe discloses a device that signs a transaction using a private key but the device is not a radio frequency tag associated with a product (Lowe [0021] The secure element processor 114, in step 240, retrieves the private key from memory 116, performs hash operations using the private key to generate a signature, decrypts the private key using the public key stored in memory 116 (i.e. checks the chain associated with public key to confirm that the signature conforms to the public key signature that could only have been generated using the specific private key), signs the transaction, and sends signed transaction information back to the mobile device, such as via an NFC communication 136. This communication may or may not be encrypted.)
Regarding claims 1 and 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the closest prior art of record to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed combination.
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 depend upon claims 1 or 8 and therefore contain all the limitations of claims 1 or 8 and are non-obvious for that reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ling (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2025/0390689 A1), Chen (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2024/0089103 A1), Colson (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0348363 A1), Bulawski (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2021/0103938 A1), Sriram (U.S. 9,436,923 B1), and Lowe (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2024/0054460 A1).
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
