DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 March 2025 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) is withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 4, 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the enablement rejection and the rejection of Claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite are withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to (or cancellation of) the claims. The rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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 1-3 and 5-13 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 recites “and has been generated by the client device” in line 4. It is not clear what the subject of the verb “has been generated” is intended to be, nor is it clear when this generation previously occurred. The claim further recites “grant authority of the client device” in line 7. It is not clear what authority of the client device is granted, although it appears that this may be intended to read that authorization is granted to the client device or that the client device is designated as an authority. The claim additionally recites “the second code includes information whether the first code has been authenticated” in lines 12-13. This is grammatically unclear with respect to the phrase “information whether”, which appears to be missing critical language and is not in clear idiomatic English. The claim also recites “by the verification device” in lines 15-16. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not grammatically clear what is performed by the verification device. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the second code that has been expired” in line 5. The phrase “that has been expired” is not in clear idiomatic English and is grammatically unclear.
Claim 3 recites “the plurality of detailed codes are generated by being changed” in line 3. However, it is not clear how the codes are to be changed.
Claim 5 recites “and has been generated by the client device” in line 4. It is not clear what the subject of the verb “has been generated” is intended to be, nor is it clear when this generation previously occurred. The claim further recites “grant authority of the client device” in line 7. It is not clear what authority of the client device is granted, although it appears that this may be intended to read that authorization is granted to the client device or that the client device is designated as an authority. The claim additionally recites “the second code includes information whether the first code has been authenticated” in lines 12-13. This is grammatically unclear with respect to the phrase “information whether”, which appears to be missing critical language and is not in clear idiomatic English. The claim also recites “by the verification device” in lines 15-16. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not grammatically clear what is performed by the verification device. The claim further recites “wherein the approving the authority comprises” in line 22. It is not clear which of the following steps of generating, verifying, and/or approving are intended to be included in the approving. The claim additionally recites “another hash value of the client device” in line 23. It is not clear what is meant by a hash value of the device, and more specifically, it is not clear what on the device may be hashed to generate this hash value. The claim also recites “the another hash value” in lines 25-26. The phrase “the another” is grammatically unclear and should read “the other”. The claim further recites “the hash value that has been generated by the verification device and included in the third code” in lines 26-27. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although the hash value was previously included in the second code, there is not a clear recitation of the hash value being included in the third code. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “the role information of the client device, of the second device” in lines 5-6. It is not clear whether the role information is of the client device or the second device, or what the phrase “of the second device” is intended to modify.
Claim 10 recites “and has been generated by the client device” in line 4. It is not clear what the subject of the verb “has been generated” is intended to be, nor is it clear when this generation previously occurred. The claim further recites “grant authority of the client device” in line 7. It is not clear what authority of the client device is granted, although it appears that this may be intended to read that authorization is granted to the client device or that the client device is designated as an authority. The claim additionally recites “the second code includes information whether the first code has been authenticated” in lines 25-26. This is grammatically unclear with respect to the phrase “information whether”, which appears to be missing critical language and is not in clear idiomatic English. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “grant authority of the client device” in lines 4-5. It is not clear what authority of the client device is granted, although it appears that this may be intended to read that authorization is granted to the client device or that the client device is designated as an authority. The claim further recites “has been performed by the verification device” in line 6. It is not clear when this verification previously occurred. The claim additionally recites “based on identification information” in line 6. It is not grammatically clear what this phrase is intended to modify. The claim also recites “the second code includes information whether the first code has been authenticated” in lines 12-13. This is grammatically unclear with respect to the phrase “information whether”, which appears to be missing critical language and is not in clear idiomatic English. The claim further recites “by the verification device” in lines 15-16. It is not clear what this phrase is intended to modify; that is, it is not grammatically clear what is performed by the verification device. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “the plurality of detailed codes are generated by being changed” in line 3. However, it is not clear how the codes are to be changed.
Claim 14 recites “the plurality of detailed code” in line 1. This is grammatically unclear with respect to agreement between “plurality” and “code”.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite and not fully enabled due to the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-14 in order to analyze the claims for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant have been cited on the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Juitt et al, US Patent 7042988, discloses a method that manages access to a protected network.
Yoo, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0050849, discloses a virtual number generation system that uses a rolling k-gon algorithm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492