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 .
1. In a preliminary amendment, claims 1 and 3-8 have been amended. Claims 9-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2025 and 08/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and claim 7.
See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 8 has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1-6 recite a method and device of securing java software code. Claim 1 comprises the steps of “defining in the native language library a method…” and “inserting in the native language library calls to a plurality of constructors", which under its broadest, reasonable interpretation covers a “mental process” with writing computer code that reasonably could be performed by person using a pen and paper (note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claims 2-5 further describe the data that is defined and inserted. Claim 6 recites generic computer components (e.g. processor, memory and an input-output interface) configured to perform claim 1.
Other than reciting, “performed by a processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed in the mind. For example, a user can use pen and paper to define a method in a native language library and insert calls to constructors in the native language library. If a claim limitation, under its broadest, reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (e.g. processor, memory…) are generic computer components. The use of a generic computer component does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) have been identified by the courts as not integrating a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components being used to perform mental processes are not 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. There are no additional steps in claims 1-6 which integrate the exception into a practical application by improving the functioning of the computer or implementing the judicial exception with a particular machine. Therefore, claims 1-6 are not patent eligible.
5. Claim 7 recites additional method steps (e.g. triggering…, calling…, unregistering…, registering…) which integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 7 is directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record (see cited prior art below and International Search Report) discloses protecting java code against static and dynamic attacks (Gu et al. – US 2012/0246487); code protection through injecting useless code (Araujo et al. – US 2019/0068640; Yi et al. – US 2015/0154407 and Zhang et al. – “DexHunter”) or code obfuscation (Horning et al. – US 9064099).
For claim 7, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach the following limitations in conjunction with the rest of the claimed limitations:
JNI_OnLoad performing registration of useless methods in a native language library; unregistering, by a zJNI thread, said useless methods; and registering, by the zJNI thread, at least one native method to be called by the secure software code
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0246487) discloses protection of java code against analysis attacks using a protected bytecode stub and protected data files which are loaded during runtime (note paragraph [0055]).
Araujo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0068640) discloses code protection through injecting booby traps into a running application (note Abstract).
Yi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0154407) discloses protecting java code against attack by inserting dummy code so that the sensitive method calls dummy codes (note paragraph [0057]).
Horning et al. (U.S. Patent 9,064,099) discloses code protection from analysis using obfuscation that inserts null-effect instructions (note column 16, lines 44-59).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PEARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6:00 pm; Monday through Friday.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at (571)270-1138. 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.
DAVID J. PEARSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/David J Pearson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights