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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 04/22/2026. In the instant amendment, claims 3-7 and 9 were amended; claims 1-2, 8, 10-15 are cancelled; claims 16-18 are new; claim 18 is the independent claim. Claims 3-7, 9, 16-18 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-7, 9, 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 3-7, 9, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondello et al (“Mondello,” US 20190034621) and further in view of Pei et al (“Pei,” US 9,419,968).
Regarding claim 3, Mondello and Pei disclose the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses in [0062] the credential request 914 sent from media player device 910 and received by mobile device 930. The wireless communication of the request that triggers the authorization prompt.
Pei further discloses wherein the prompting for authorization of transmission of at least one credential from the authentication platform to the first device is communicated via a push notification service (Pei discloses in Col. 3, Lines 60-67, authentication server 106 may initiate the push notification, delivering push notification via a standard push notification service 116 such as Google Cloud Manager (GCM) and Apple Push Notification Service (APN); Col. 4, Lines 1-15 describe users of a native client may register devices (e.g. mobile phones, tablets, personal computers) with authentication server 106. In one embodiment, registered devices may include a mobile application to receive and response to push notifications; FIG 1 shows a push notification service 116 between OTP/push validation service 108 and user device 112 with push application 113. Also see claim 1, sending a mobile push notification to a registered device…receiving a response to the mobile push notification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pei with Mondello to include wherein the prompting for authorization of transmission of at least one credential from the authentication platform to the first device is communicated via a push notification service. One would have been motivated to provide a mobile push user authentication for native client based logon (Pei, Col. 1, Lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 4, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses wherein the request for the at least one credential from the second device is initiated by an application executed on the second device, (Mondello, [0060], prompt 912 is provided by an application executing on device 910 and provided to authenticate with respect to a service…prompt 912 may be presented by an application associated with a streaming service and executable to stream various video content to the media player device 910; [0062], credential request 914 is initiated in response to user input to the application where a user may navigate one or more menus depicted on display 920 resulting in the presentation of authentication prompt 912 and request 914 may be sent in response to the user selecting a field in authentication prompt 912; [0082], the authentication prompt is provided by an application executed at the first computing device; [0087] an application providing to a first computing device, an authentication prompt asking for a user credential to authenticate a user)
Regarding claim 5, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18,
Mondello further discloses wherein development, editing and management of the at least one credential stored on the memory of the first device is performed by a software application operating on the first device, (Mondello, [0023], web browsers are credential-managing applications that store login and password information; [0040], the retrieved login information may be retrieved from a keychain. A user may have previously logged into a website using a browser by entering a user name and password and saved those credentials to the keychain [the keychain is the credential management software application on the first device]; [0064], selection prompt 932 is presented by an operating system of mobile device 130, which may be executable to implement various functionality described herein with respect to the mobile device 930 and the selection prompt 932 is presented by an application other than an operating system for example a remote control application for the media player device 910 that is executable by the mobile device 930; FIG 5 shows you can create an account which lets you create an account with username and password or if you forgot the password you can change it).
Regarding claim 6, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses in [0073] & [0080] describe device 910 and 930 may be authenticated based on both devices being registered with the same cloud-based user account. Mobile device 930 may determine that devices 910 and 930 are registered to the same account of a cloud service and determining that the first computing device and the second computing device are registered to the same account of a cloud service.
Pei further discloses wherein the authentication platform is a network accessible server, (Pei, Col. 5, Lines 1-11, each of the servers 104 and 106 may be a computing device (i.e. a server machine, a router, personal computer etc) that may provide a least some functionality related to authentication. The servers 104 and 106 may be referred to as network resources; FIG 1 shows an authentication server 106 in second server computing system 105 is a network accessible server communicating via a network 122)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pei with Mondello to include wherein the authentication platform is a network accessible server. One would have been motivated to provide a mobile push user authentication for native client based logon (Pei, Col. 1, Lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 7, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses wherein the first device is a portable device capable of communicating with the authentication platform and the second device, (Mondello, [0061], [0059] although described as a mobile device 930, device 930 may correspond to any suitable media player device such as those noted above with respect to media player device 910 including tablet, smartphone, wearable device, device operations include laptop or notebook computer…tablet computer, handheld computer…a mobile phone, music player, personal data assistant (PDA), wearable device; [0073], [0059] mobile device 930 communicates with media player device 910 via wireless channels and with cloud service for account registration, communicates with both the platform and the second device; FIG 9 describe mobile device 930 depicted as a smartphone)
Regarding claim 9, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses wherein transmissions of the requested at least one credential from the first device to the authentication platform is encrypted, (Mondello, [0069], media player device 910 establishes a secure/encrypted channel with mobile device 930 at 1024 to protect subsequent communications between devices 910 and 930. In some embodiments, this may include performing Diffie Hellman (DH) key exchange to establish a cryptographic key for encrypting and decrypting subsequent communications [0073], exchange a shared secret between the first and second computing devices in order to communicate the selected user credential via an encrypted channel established based on the shared secret, [0080], establishing an encrypted channel with the second computing device to communicate the selected user credential, [0084], establishing an encrypted channel with the second computing device, wherein the selected user credential is received via the encrypted channel)
Regarding claim 16, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses wherein the first device is a cellular telephone, (Modello, [0058]- [0059], device options expressly include a mobile phone applicable to either device 910 or 930, [0061], mobile device 930 referred to as the credential holding device depicted as a smartphone in Figures 9 in the selection prompt 932, 11A-11D using a password, authentication code, password and password respectively)
Regarding claim 17, Mondello and Pei the method of claim 18.
Mondello further discloses wherein the second device is a personal computer, (Mondello, [0059], describes device 910 may correspond to any suitable computing device such as laptop or notebook computer, personal computer system, desktop computer, handheld computer, workstation, network computer)
Regarding claim 18, Mondello discloses a method of adding a layer of security to a web-based account which independent of security measures provided by an account manager, comprising: (Mondello, [0023], [0057], Abstract discloses a method of adding a layer of security to a web-based account which is independent of a security measures provided by an account manager)
providing an authentication platform that does not communicate with the account manager; (Mondello, [0063], [0070], [0083], FIG 9 discloses providing an authentication platform that does not communicate with the account manager)
storing at least one credential needed to access the web-based account on the memory storage of the first device; (Mondello, [0061], [0023], [0040] describe storing at least one credential needed to access the web-based account on the memory storage of the first device)
and if the user authorizes transmission, transmitting the at least one credential from the first device to the second device, (Mondello, [0066], [0070], FIG 10, step 1036 describe and if the user authorizes transmission, transmitting the at least one credential from the first device to the second device)
Mondello fails to explicitly disclose registering a first device on the authentication platform, the first device having memory storage; receiving on the authentication platform a request for the at least one credential from a second device; prompting a user, on the first device, to either authorize or deny transmission of the at least one credential from the first device to the second device.
However, in an analogous art, Pei discloses registering a first device on the authentication platform, the first device having memory storage; (Pei discloses in Col, 3, Lines 55-567; Col. 4, Lines 1-9, users of a native client may register devices (e.g. mobile phones, tablets, personal computers with authentication server 106. Registered devices may include a mobile application to receive and respond to push notifications to the authentication server. The application embeds a unique secure credential to prove the identity of the user and device)
receiving on the authentication platform a request for the at least one credential from a second device; (Pei discloses in Col. 5, Lines 58-67; Col. 6, Lines 1-20 an authentication server 106 may employ OTP/push validation service 108 to send a push notification requesting authorization to a registered user device 112; FIG 2, block 212 send mobile push notification which is a server-mediated request)
prompting a user, on the first device, to either authorize or deny transmission of the at least one credential from the first device to the second device, (Pei discloses in Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 1-15, the application may read the push notification delivered from the push service, fetch actual push message content from the OTP/push validation service, and prompt the user to accept or reject the request. The application may then send the user approval to the OTP/push validation service)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pei with Mondello to include registering a first device on the authentication platform, the first device having memory storage; receiving on the authentication platform a request for the at least one credential from a second device; prompting a user, on the first device, to either authorize or deny transmission of the at least one credential from the first device to the second device. One would have been motivated to provide a mobile push user authentication for native client based logon (Pei, Col. 1, Lines 33-34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights