DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant's Arguments filed December 1, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues it’s unclear what Radier is disclosing in view of the bracketed limitation, “receiving, by the computing device and from the second user, [based on the sending the message to the second user, a token indicative of a service provider] associated with the second user, wherein the service provider authenticates an identity of the second user.” The limitation is about receiving authentication information (token) that includes an indication of a service provider. Raider discloses receiving authentication information.
Applicant argues Shalunov and Raider do not disclose based on the sending the message to the second user, a token indicative of a service provider. Applicant argues that in Shalunov bill attempt to access the network on his own. Paragraph [0061] of Shalunov discloses Bill has been invited to a meeting through an online calendar system, e.g., Outlook. His identity (in this case, his e-mail address) is in the meeting details, since that is how the invitation was send to him. Paragraph [0060] of Shalunov discloses since the meeting has been entered into an electronic calendar, he is automatically given permission to access the network. Bill’s access of the network is in response to the invitation to the meeting which is also the invitation to use the network. Accordingly, his access of the portal and selection of the provider in the portal is based on the sending of the message (invitation).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2015/0195282 to Radier (hereinafter “Radier”) and further in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0019409 to Shalunov (hereinafter “Shalunov”).
As to Claim 1, Radier discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a first user, a request to grant a second user access to a network (Paragraph [0074] of Radier discloses the first management module 40 receives, from the host terminal 10, a request to offer to share the access to the host network in association with an identifier of the host user and the list LV of users previously selected for the sharing offer. These users are hereinafter called "invited users");
sending, by the computing device, based on the request and to the second user, a message associated with the second user, wherein the message comprises an indication to access the network (Paragraph [0085] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 is notified by the social network 2 of the offer to share the access to the host network 1 sent previously by the host user. This notification is sent to the invited terminal 11.);
receiving, by the computing device and from the second user, [based on the sending the message to the second user, a token indicative of a service provider] associated with the second user, wherein the service provider authenticates an identity of the second user (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses receives an authentication message comprising a unique identifier of the invited user and a password allowing access to the social network);
sending, by the computing device and based on the receiving the token, and to the service provider, data associated with the token (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 then relays the authentication message to the social network 2); and
sending, by the computing device, based on a determination that the token is valid and to the second user, an indication of a credential for accessing the network (Paragraph [0089] of Radier discloses receives the authentication parameters (identifier of the network and network access key) from the host network 1).
Radier does not explicitly disclose based on the sending the message to the second user, a token indicative of a service provider.
However, Shalunov discloses this. Paragraph [0061] of Shalunov discloses Bill has been invited to a meeting through an online calendar system, e.g., Outlook. When he arrives at the company, Bill attempts to join the network (Step 1), and is redirected to LinkedIn (Step 2) as he would have been redirected to Facebook in Use Case 1. If he is a LinkedIn user, he may be asked to approve access of the system's LinkedIn app to his profile. Once he does this, it authenticates Bill by seeing if the stored e-mail address in his LinkedIn account matches the e-mail address he used to receive the meeting invitation. Paragraph [0062] of Shalunov discloses portal which asks him how he wants to sign into the network. He chooses LinkedIn. This discloses needing to indicate the service provider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine sharing network access as disclosed by Radier, with indicating the identity provider as disclosed by Shalunov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Radier and Shalunov are directed toward sharing network access and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Shalunov discloses having a predetermined identity provider or allowing the user to select an identity provider are known alternatives of each other.
As to Claim 2, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first user is an owner of the network and wherein the second user is an unauthorized user on the network (Paragraph [0013] of Radier discloses the configuration method allows a host user to share the access to a host network only with users expressly authorized by the latter to access the network).
As to Claim 4, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the first user, a request to grant one or more additional users access to the network; sending, based on the request and to the one or more additional users, the message, wherein the message is associated with each of the one or more additional users; receiving, from at least one of the additional users, a different token indicative of a different service provider associated with the at least one of the additional users; sending, based on the receiving the different token, and to the different service provider, data associated with the different token; and sending, based on an additional determination that the different token is valid and to the at least one of the additional users, the indication of the credential for accessing the network (Paragraph [0074] of Radier discloses the first management module 40 receives, from the host terminal 10, a request to offer to share the access to the host network in association with an identifier of the host user and the list LV of users previously selected for the sharing offer. These users are hereinafter called "invited users". Paragraph [0090] of Radier discloses the steps E8 to E13 are notably repeated for each invited user in the list of invited users obtained in the phase P1. Paragraph [0062] of Shalunov discloses portal which asks him how he wants to sign into the network. He chooses LinkedIn.).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 5, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message comprising the invitation further comprises a Wi-Fi settings object comprising: an identifier associated with the network; and the credential (Paragraph [0094] of Radier discloses an SSID identifier and an access key to the host network 1).
As to Claim 6, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the service provider comprises a social media entity (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 then relays the authentication message to the social network 2).
As to Claim 7, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from a different user, a second token indicative of a second service provider; determining that the identity of the different user associated with the second token is different than the identity of the second user; and preventing access, by the different user, to the indication of the credential (Paragraph [0013] of Shalunov discloses the access point initiates a social network inquiry to determine whether to provide unrestricted access, restricted access, or no access).
As to Claim 8, Radier discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a first user, a request to grant a second user access to a network (Paragraph [0074] of Radier discloses the first management module 40 receives, from the host terminal 10, a request to offer to share the access to the host network in association with an identifier of the host user and the list LV of users previously selected for the sharing offer. These users are hereinafter called "invited users");
sending, by the computing device, based on the request and to the second user, a message associated with the second user comprising: an address associated with the network; and an object comprising at least an identifier of the network and a credential for accessing the network (Paragraph [0085] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 is notified by the social network 2 of the offer to share the access to the host network 1 sent previously by the host user. This notification is sent to the invited terminal 11.);
receiving, by the computing device and from the second user, [based on the sending the message to the second user, a token] indicative of the second user's identity authenticated by a service provider (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses receives an authentication message comprising a unique identifier of the invited user and a password allowing access to the social network);
sending, by the computing device and to the service provider, data associated with the token (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 then relays the authentication message to the social network 2); and
sending, by the computing device, based on a determination that the token is valid, to the second user, a second object comprising at least one of an accessible version of the identifier of the network or an accessible version of the credential (Paragraph [0089] of Radier discloses receives the authentication parameters (identifier of the network and network access key) from the host network 1).
Radier does not explicitly disclose based on the sending the message to the second user, a token.
However, Shalunov discloses this. Paragraph [0061] of Shalunov discloses Bill has been invited to a meeting through an online calendar system, e.g., Outlook. When he arrives at the company, Bill attempts to join the network (Step 1), and is redirected to LinkedIn (Step 2) as he would have been redirected to Facebook in Use Case 1. If he is a LinkedIn user, he may be asked to approve access of the system's LinkedIn app to his profile. Once he does this, it authenticates Bill by seeing if the stored e-mail address in his LinkedIn account matches the e-mail address he used to receive the meeting invitation. Paragraph [0062] of Shalunov discloses portal which asks him how he wants to sign into the network. He chooses LinkedIn. This discloses needing to indicate the service provider.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 9, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the service provider is a social media entity (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 then relays the authentication message to the social network 2).
As to Claim 10, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first user is an authorized user on the network and wherein the second user is an unauthorized user on the network (Paragraph [0013] of Radier discloses the configuration method allows a host user to share the access to a host network only with users expressly authorized by the latter to access the network).
As to Claim 11, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first object is encrypted prior to the sending the invitation to the second user (Paragraph [0100] of Radier discloses the sensitive data, such as the identifiers and network access keys are systematically encrypted when they are exchanged between modules, devices or entities of the network).
As to Claim 12, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the of the second object is an unencrypted version of the first object (Paragraph [0100] of Radier discloses the sensitive data, such as the identifiers and network access keys are systematically encrypted when they are exchanged between modules, devices or entities of the network. In order to be used the information must eventually be unencrypted).
As to Claim 14, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, from a third user, a second token indicative of a second service provider; determining that the identity of the third user associated with the second token is different than the identity of the second user; and preventing access, by the third user, to the indication of the credential (Paragraph [0013] of Shalunov discloses the access point initiates a social network inquiry to determine whether to provide unrestricted access, restricted access, or no access).
As to Claim 15, Radier discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from an authorized user, a request to grant a plurality of unauthorized users access to a network (Paragraph [0074] of Radier discloses the first management module 40 receives, from the host terminal 10, a request to offer to share the access to the host network in association with an identifier of the host user and the list LV of users previously selected for the sharing offer. These users are hereinafter called "invited users");
sending, by the computing device, based on the request and to each one of the plurality of unauthorized users, a message associated with the plurality of unauthorized users, wherein the message comprises an invitation to access the network (Paragraph [0085] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 is notified by the social network 2 of the offer to share the access to the host network 1 sent previously by the host user. This notification is sent to the invited terminal 11.);;
receiving, by the computing device and from a first one of the plurality of unauthorized users, [based on the sending the message to the first one of the plurality of unauthorized users, a first token indicative of a first service provider] associated with the first one of the plurality of unauthorized users (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses receives an authentication message comprising a unique identifier of the invited user and a password allowing access to the social network);
determining, by the computing device and based on sending the first token to the first service provider, a validity of an identity of the first one of the plurality of unauthorized users (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 then relays the authentication message to the social network 2);
receiving, by the computing device and from a second one of the plurality of unauthorized users, [based on the sending the message to the second one of the plurality of unauthorized users, a second token indicative of a second service provider] associated with the second one of the plurality of unauthorized users (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses receives an authentication message comprising a unique identifier of the invited user and a password allowing access to the social network);
determining, by the computing device and based on sending the second token to the second service provider, a validity of an identity of the second one of the plurality of unauthorized users (Paragraph [0083] of Radier discloses the second management module 50 then relays the authentication message to the social network 2); and
sending, by the computing device and based on the determining, to the first one of the unauthorized users and to the second one of the unauthorized users, an indication of the credential (Paragraph [0089] of Radier discloses receives the authentication parameters (identifier of the network and network access key) from the host network 1).
Radier does not explicitly disclose based on the sending the message to the first one of the plurality of unauthorized users, a first token indicative of a first service provider and based on the sending the message to the second one of the plurality of unauthorized users, a second token indicative of a second service provider.
However, Shalunov discloses this. Paragraph [0061] of Shalunov discloses Bill has been invited to a meeting through an online calendar system, e.g., Outlook. When he arrives at the company, Bill attempts to join the network (Step 1), and is redirected to LinkedIn (Step 2) as he would have been redirected to Facebook in Use Case 1. If he is a LinkedIn user, he may be asked to approve access of the system's LinkedIn app to his profile. Once he does this, it authenticates Bill by seeing if the stored e-mail address in his LinkedIn account matches the e-mail address he used to receive the meeting invitation. Paragraph [0062] of Shalunov discloses portal which asks him how he wants to sign into the network. He chooses LinkedIn. This discloses needing to indicate the service provider.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 16, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, from a third one of the plurality of unauthorized users, a third token indicative of a third service provider; determining that the token is invalid; and preventing access, of the third one of the plurality of unauthorized users, to the indication of the credential (Paragraph [0013] of Shalunov discloses the access point initiates a social network inquiry to determine whether to provide unrestricted access, restricted access, or no access).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 17, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, from a different user, a fourth token indicative of a fourth service provider; determining that the identity of the different user associated with the fourth token is different than each of the identities of the plurality of unauthorized users; and preventing access, of the different user, to the indication of the credential (Paragraph [0013] of Shalunov discloses the access point initiates a social network inquiry to determine whether to provide unrestricted access, restricted access, or no access).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 18, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 15, the invitation further comprising: an address associated with joining the network; and an object comprising at least an identifier of the network and the credential (Paragraph [0094] of Radier discloses an SSID identifier and an access key to the host network 1).
As to Claim 19, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the first service provider is a first social media entity, and wherein the second service provider is a second, different social media entity (Paragraph [0062] of Shalunov discloses portal which asks him how he wants to sign into the network. He chooses LinkedIn. This discloses needing to indicate the service provider among multiple options).
As to Claim 20, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising encrypting the object prior to the sending the message to the at least one of the plurality of unauthorized users (Paragraph [0100] of Radier discloses the sensitive data, such as the identifiers and network access keys are systematically encrypted when they are exchanged between modules, devices or entities of the network).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radier-Shalunov and further in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0036506 to Ficara et al. (hereinafter “Ficara”).
As to Claim 3, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 1. Radier-Shalunov does not explicitly disclose wherein the token is an open authentication token associated with the second user.
However, Ficara discloses this. Paragraph [0029] of Ficara discloses select an identity 235 corresponding to an acceptable credential type 230 (e.g., a token, certificate, username/password, SIM, etc.). Paragraph [0038] of Ficara discloses the identity provider 350 may use any suitable authentication protocols, such as OAuth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the network access system as disclosed by Radier, with using open authentication as disclosed by Ficara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device. Radier and Ficara are directed toward network access systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Paragraph [0038] of Ficara discloses the identity provider 350 may use any suitable authentication protocols, such as OAuth. Ficara discloses identity provider using OAuth as a known alternative.
As to Claim 13, Radier-Shalunov discloses the method of claim 8. Radier-Shalunov does not explicitly disclose wherein the token is an open authentication token associated with the second user.
However, Ficara discloses this. Paragraph [0029] of Ficara discloses select an identity 235 corresponding to an acceptable credential type 230 (e.g., a token, certificate, username/password, SIM, etc.). Paragraph [0038] of Ficara discloses the identity provider 350 may use any suitable authentication protocols, such as OAuth.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin S Mai whose telephone number is (571)270-5001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on 5712723951. 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.
/KEVIN S MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499