Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Replacement Office Action
The previous office action dated 6/3/2024 is hereby vacated and this office action replaces it.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/1/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges “that claim 12 depends from claim 11, which properly introduces the term ‘registration phase.’ Accordingly, the limitation ‘the registration phase of the user’ recited in claim 12 has sufficient antecedent basis based at least on its dependency from claim 11.” The issue at hand is now different based on the amendment below, however, responding to Applicant’s argument, a registration phase does not provide sufficient antecedent basis for “the registration phase of the user”, even if it may provide sufficient antecedent basis for “the registration phase”.
Applicant’s allegations on pages 8-9 of the response are moot since Applicant has re-opened prosecution. Furthermore, Applicant is clearly incorrect in alleging “However, no reasoning is provided explaining why the citations from Sonkar are believed to disclose the claimed features in each line, nor are the citations matched to the features of the claims.” (emphasis removed). To the contrary, the first time any subject matter came up, the rejection provided an explanation sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand. This can be seen in the rejection of claim 1, for example:
Regarding Claim 1,
Sonkar discloses a method comprising:
Receiving a currently provided first identity factor from a user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, and associated figures; receiving any identity factor, such as account identifier, username, password, PIN, portion(s) of the above or many additional factors, etc., as examples);
Generating a matrix of values from the currently provided first identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating layouts, positions, or the like, as examples);
Accessing a stored user algorithm for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; algorithm, for example);
Applying the stored user algorithm to an application of the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate an unverified second identity factor, wherein the application of the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values results in a generation of coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating another keypad for another input, a position based on the keypad generated from the previous input, etc., as examples);
Receiving a currently provided second identity factor from the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; receiving second input either via keypad or via position, for example); and
Determining whether the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; authenticate the above, for example).
Thus, Applicant is incorrect.
Applicant makes various allegations on pages 8-9 of the response that Applicant is forced to guess which features disclose each of the claimed elements. However, this is simply untrue, since the rejection clearly detailed how each limitation was being rejected.
With respect to Applicant’s limitation (i), reading “using the currently provided first identify factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values,’ Applicant cites the rejection of claim 2 and alleges “the Final Office Action, appears to map Sonkar’s trapdoor function to the recited ‘one way function.’ However, no additional evidence or analysis is provided in support of the Office’s reasoning. In absence of a proper analysis, Applicant can only speculate which features in the cited portions of Sonkar correspond to the claimed features” (emphasis removed). It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to argue here. Claim 2 was different than what is currently amended into claim 1. The rejection of claim 2 was rejecting the one way function of the claim as being the trapdoor function of the reference. Applicant appears to be alleging that the rejection was so unclear that Applicant is unable to determine that the one way function of the claim was being rejected with the trapdoor function in Sonkar, while simultaneously appearing to admit knowledge of the fact that “the Final Office Action, appears to map Sonkar’s trapdoor function to the recited ‘one way function.’” Since Applicant’s allegation is in direct contradiction to Applicant’s statements, Applicant’s allegations are clearly moot. The argued limitation is rejected as follows below:
Using the currently provided first identity factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating layouts, positions, or the like, as well as using a one way function, such as a trapdoor function, as examples);
Thus, Sonkar clearly discloses the argued subject matter.
Applicant’s allegations in the first full paragraph on page 11 of the response appear to have nothing to do with the rejection at hand. The rejection does not even mention a seed, so it is unclear just what Applicant’s allegations directed to the seed have to do with anything. The claims do not prohibit use of a seed or communication between devices or anything. Thus, Applicant’s allegations have no bearing on the rejection at hand.
Applicant appears to admit, in the second paragraph on page 11 of the response dated 5/1/2024, “Sonkar explains that a user input may be used to produce subsequent keypad layouts” (emphasis removed). The Examiner thanks Applicant for providing such a statement of Applicant’s understanding of the reference, thus showing user inputs being used to produce subsequent keypad layouts. The rest of the second paragraph has similar arguments to those above, which have nothing to do with the claims at hand, since the claims do not prohibit inputs not provided by a user to be used. The fact of the matter is that Sonkar discloses using the currently provided first identity factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values in Sonkar’s disclosure of generating layouts, positions, or the like, as well as using a one way function, such as a trapdoor function, as examples.
Applicant appears to provide no argument with respect to limitation (ii). Thus, no response is possible. Sonkar clearly discloses applying the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate first coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values in Sonkar’s disclosure of generating a position based on the keypad generated from the previous input, etc., for example.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations regarding limitation (iii), Sonkar clearly discloses applying the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor in Sonkar’s disclosure of generating another keypad for another input, a position based on the keypad generated from the previous input, etc., as examples.
Applicant appears to place all arguments for this limitation on Applicant’s allegation “This is because Sonkar is silent with regard to the recited ‘stored user algorithm.’” (emphasis removed). Applicant then cites a portion of the office action, provides Applicant’s understanding that the rejection stated that the claims stored user algorithm was being rejected with the algorithm of Sonkar, provides Applicant’s understanding of a portion of Sonkar, and alleges “Sonkar fails to disclose that the mathematical algorithm used for the generation of pseudo-random keypad layouts, or any other algorithm for that matter, operates on Sonkar’s position string (e.g., the cited ‘first coordinate values’). Therefore, Sonkar fails to disclose that this algorithm operates on the position string, much less ‘to generate an unverified second identity factor,’ as recited in claim 1” (emphasis removed). This is quite confusing. Applicant is arguing that the rejection’s explanation of how the reference disclosed “accessing a stored user algorithm for the user” is somehow insufficient to prove disclosure of another limitation. However, Applicant ignores the explanation given for the other limitation, and erroneously alleges that the rejection only stated that “algorithm” was used to reject applying the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor. However, with respect to how this limitation was found previously, the rejection stated the following:
Regarding Claim 1,
Sonkar discloses a method comprising:
...
Accessing a stored user algorithm for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; algorithm, for example);
Applying the stored user algorithm to an application of the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate an unverified second identity factor, wherein the application of the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values results in a generation of coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating another keypad for another input, a position based on the keypad generated from the previous input, etc., as examples);
...
As Applicant has provided no argument against how Sonkar was cited against the argued subject matter, no further response is possible.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 states “receive, form the user system”, which should apparently read “receive, from the user system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “receiving a currently provided first identity factor from a user, wherein the currently provided first identity factor precedes any identity factor received from the user”. However, the application as originally filed does not appear to include basis for receiving a first identity factor from the user prior to any identity factor received from the user.
Claim 1 states “applying the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate first coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values”. However, the application as originally filed does not appear to include basis for this positive step of applying to occur prior to accessing the stored algorithm.
Claim 1 states “applying the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor”. The application as originally filed does not appear to include basis for applying the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor.
Claim 8 includes similar issues to those described for claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 states “receiving a currently provided first identity factor from a user, wherein the currently provided first identity factor precedes any identity factor received from the user”. However, it is not possible for the currently provided first identity factor to be received from the user while it simultaneously precedes any identity factor received from the user, since it is received from the user. Claims 2-7 are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the rotated cube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the registration phase of the user with the client system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "the currently provided first identify factor" in the second limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea:
The following limitations of claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea:
A method comprising:
receiving a currently provided first identity factor from a user, wherein the currently provided first identity factor precedes any identity factor received from the user (mental process, a human being hearing a "first identity factor" spoken by a user, or reading it from paper);
using the currently provided first identity factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values (mental process, a human being mentally (or with pen and paper) generating a matrix of values based on received "first identity factor");
applying the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate first coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values (mental process, a human being mentally (or with pen and paper) using the "first identity factor" to generate "coordinate locations of values" of the "first identity factor" in the matrix);
accessing a stored user algorithm for the user (mental process, a human being mentally (or with pen and paper) retrieving an algorithm for the user);
applying the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor (mental process, a human being mentally (or with pen and paper) applying the retrieved algorithm to "coordinate values" to generate a "second identity factor");
receiving a currently provided second identity factor from the user (mental process, a human being mentally (or with pen and paper), for instance hearing spoken or reading words, obtaining a "second identity factor"; and
determining whether the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor (mental process, a human being mentally (or with pen and paper) determining if received matches the reference).
There are no additional elements. The entirety of the claim is infringeable via a mental process of a human being.
Thus, with no additional elements, the additional elements can never integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are no relevant considerations for additional elements. When considered as a whole, the claims are not directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. The entirety of the claim may be infringed by a human thinking or using pen or paper, or an interaction between two human beings.
With no additional elements, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Similar to claim 1, claims 8 and 15 and all dependent claims are also rejected, even though there are some inherent (e.g., claims 6-7's "transmitting [results]") or explicit (claim 8's "user system", "client system", "authentication system", etc.) recitation of additional elements. None of them appear to be more than using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and thus are simply instructions to apply an exception MPEP 2106.05(f), (2). The only post-solution activity recited appears to be claims 6-7 (and their equivalent) which is insignificant post solution activity, because it is simply presenting or transmitting results of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sonkar (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0285549).
Regarding Claim 1,
Sonkar discloses a method comprising:
Receiving a currently provided first identity factor from a user, wherein the currently provided first identity factor precedes any identity factor received from the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, and associated figures; receiving any identity factor, such as account identifier, username, password, PIN, portion(s) of the above or many additional factors, etc., as examples);
Using the currently provided first identity factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating layouts, positions, or the like, as well as using a one way function, such as a trapdoor function, as examples);
Applying the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate first coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating a position based on the keypad generated from the previous input, etc., for example);
Accessing a stored user algorithm for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; algorithm, for example);
Applying the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; generating another keypad for another input, a position based on the keypad generated from the previous input, etc., as examples);
Receiving a currently provided second identity factor from the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; receiving second input either via keypad or via position, for example); and
Determining whether the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; authenticate the above, for example).
Regarding Claim 3,
Sonkar discloses that prior to accessing the stored user algorithm, generating the stored user algorithm by comparing an application of a non-stored verified first identity factor to a non-stored verified matrix of values with an application of a non-stored verified second identity factor to the non-stored verified matrix of values so that the stored user algorithm indicates a difference generated when comparing coordinate values of the non-stored verified first and second identity factors on the non-stored verified matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 82, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; previous verification, generation of algorithm, generating keypads, positions, etc., as examples. These are all based on the inputs and are different. The intended use of “so that the stored user algorithm indicates a difference generated when comparing coordinate values of the non-stored verified first and second identity factors on the non-stored verified matrix of values” has no patentable weight).
Regarding Claim 4,
Sonkar discloses that the non-stored verified matrix of values is generated from the non-stored verified first identity factor using a one way function during a registration phase of the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; trapdoor function and registration, for example).
Regarding Claim 5,
Sonkar discloses that generating the stored user algorithm is performed during a registration phase of the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 82, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 6,
Sonkar discloses in response to determining that the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor, transmitting a valid authentication response for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; authentication response, for example).
Regarding Claim 7,
Sonkar discloses in response to determining that the unverified second identity factor does not match the currently provided second identity factor, transmitting an invalid authentication response for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; decline result, for example).
Regarding Claim 8,
Sonkar discloses a system comprising:
A user system comprising one or more computing devices operable to receive identity factors from a user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description, as well as all below citations; this may be the VR device, for example);
A client system of an entity comprising one or more computing devices, the client system being communicatively coupled to the user system via a computer network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description, as well as all below citations; this may be the computing device, VR application server, or the like, as examples); and
An authentication system comprising one or more processors and storage devices being communicatively coupled to the user system and the client system via the computer network, wherein the authentication system is configured to (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description, as well as all below citations; this may be the VR application server, transaction processing computer, authorizing computer, etc., as examples):
Receive, from the user system, a currently provided first identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, and associated figures);
Use the currently provided first identity factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Apply the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values to generate first coordinate values indicating a respective coordinate location of values of the currently provided first identity factor within the matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Access a stored user algorithm for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Apply the stored user algorithm to the first coordinate values to generate an unverified second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Receive, from the user system, a currently provided second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures); and
Determine whether the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 9,
Sonkar discloses that the currently provided first identity factor comprises a password or biometric data of the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 10,
Sonkar discloses that the client system becomes accessible to the user system after authentication of the user by the authentication system(Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; transaction proceeds, for example).
Regarding Claim 11,
Sonkar discloses that the stored user algorithm is generated during a registration phase by comparing an application of a non-stored verified second identity factor to a non-stored verified matrix of values with an application of a non-stored verified second identity factor to the non-stored verified matrix of values so that the stored user algorithm indicates a difference generated when comparing coordinate values of the non-stored verified first and second identity factors on the non-stored verified matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 82, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 12,
Sonkar discloses that the non-stored verified matrix of values is generated from the non-stored verified first identity factor using a one way function during the registration phase of the user with the client system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 13,
Sonkar discloses that the authentication system is further configured to transmit a valid authentication response for the user to the client system when the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 14,
Sonkar discloses that the authentication system is further configured to transmit an invalid authentication response for the user system when the unverified second identity factor does not match the currently provided second identity factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 15,
Sonkar discloses a method comprising:
Receiving a currently provided first identity factor from a user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, and associated figures);
Using the currently provided first identity factor with a one way function to generate a matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Accessing a stored user algorithm for the user, the stored user algorithm previously generated during a registration phase of the user by comparing an application of a non-stored verified second identity factor to a non-stored verified matrix of values with an application of a non-stored verified first identity factor to the non-stored verified matrix of values so that the stored user algorithm indicates a difference generated when comparing coordinate values of the non-stored verified first and second identity factors on the non-stored verified matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Generating an unverified second identity factor by applying the stored user algorithm to an application of the currently provided first identity factor to the matrix of values (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures);
Receiving a currently provided second identity factor from the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures); and
Determining whether the unverified second factor matches the currently provided second factor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 16,
Sonkar discloses in response to determining that the unverified second identity factor matches the currently provided second identity factor, transmitting a valid authentication response for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 17,
Sonkar discloses in response to determining that the unverified second identity factor does not match the currently provided second identity factor, transmitting an invalid authentication response for the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 18,
Sonkar discloses that the non-stored verified matrix of values is generated from the non-stored verified first identity factor using a one way function during the registration phase (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 19,
Sonkar discloses receiving the currently provided first identity factor comprises collecting biometric data from the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 20, 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, 121, and associated figures; eyes, eye movements, motion detection, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 20,
Sonkar discloses receiving the currently provided first identity factor comprises receiving a password from the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-79, 84-92, 101-108, and associated figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonkar in view of Chan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0019382).
Regarding Claim 2,
Sonkar discloses that using the currently provided first identity factor with the one way function to generate the matrix of values comprises producing a result (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 21, 51, 52, 58-60, 65, 73-80, 84-97, 101-108, 112-116, and associated figures; result of the above, for example);
But does not appear to explicitly disclose that the result comprises a series of rotations for a cube, wherein the matrix of values represents faces of the rotated cube.
Chan, however, discloses that the result comprises a series of rotations for a cube, wherein the matrix of values represents faces of the rotated cube (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 35-42, 44, 46, 49-54, and associated figures; authentication using cube corresponding to matrix(es) and rotations as well as selections there from, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the authentication via 3D object techniques of Chan into the authentication system of Sonkar in order to allow the system to use additional means for input, to provide for authentication via both rotations as well as selections, to provide additional authentication parameters, and/or to increase security in the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432