DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended as filed on 05/21/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abt, JR. et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2017/0301052 A1), hereinafter Abt, in view of Patel et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0228406 A1), hereinafter Patel, and in further view of Fam (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0409216).
2. With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, Abt taught a method, comprising: receiving, by a user device and from an inspection system, a request for a mobile passport, the user device having stored thereon a mobile passport private key (0006, where the private key can be seen in 0045, and the request is given as part of the verification process. Furthermore, it can be seen that the keys are stored on the device in association with 0017); transmitting, by the user device and to the inspection system, the mobile passport based at least in part on the request, the mobile passport comprising a mobile passport public key (0030); receiving, by the user device and from the inspection system, a mobile supplemental document, the mobile supplemental document comprising a mobile supplemental document public key derived from the mobile passport public key, the inspection system being configured to derive the mobile supplemental document public key from the mobile passport public key (figure 4, item 420, where the digital stamp image is a supplemental document, where the public key is associated with the private key in accordance with 0066); deriving, by the user device, a mobile supplemental document identifier that corresponds to the mobile supplemental document public key, the mobile supplemental document identifier being derived from the mobile passport private key (0045, where the signature is derived from the private key); and linking, by the user device, the mobile supplemental document to the mobile passport based at least in a part on the derivation of the mobile supplemental document private key from the mobile passport private key (0045, the combined hash. See also: the linkage of 0006).
However, while it could be argued under broadest reasonable interpretation that Abt’s digital signature is tantamount to being a private key, in order to achieve a more compact prosecution, it is contended that Abt did not explicitly state that the mobile supplemental document identifier was a second private key that was generated from a first private key. However, Patel did teach that the mobile supplemental document identifier was a second private key that was generated from a first private key (0023). Both of the systems of Abt and Patel are directed towards managing identification security through the use of private keys and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Abt, to utilize child private keys that were generated from parent private keys, as taught by Patel, in order to better secure linked documents. Accordingly, the digital signature from Abt essentially performs the functions of a private key.
However, Abt did not explicitly state accessing, by the user device, a mobile passport private key from a secure storage of the user device and performing actions based at least in part on the accessing of the mobile passport private key from the secure storage of the user device. On the other hand, Fam did teach accessing, by the user device, a mobile passport private key from a secure storage of the user device (0081) and performing actions based at least in part on the accessing of the mobile passport private key from the secure storage of the user device (0081, where the assets/documents are linked in accordance with 0080). Both of the systems of Abt and Fam are directed towards managing identification security through the use of private keys and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Abt, to utilize private keys that were stored on a user’s mobile device, as taught by Fam, in order to provide more security to linked documents.
3. As for claims 2, 10, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 9, and 17 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught determining whether user consent has been provided to transmit the mobile passport to the inspection system; and transmitting the mobile passport based at least in part on the determination (Under broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be seen that the user is consenting to the transmittal of the identifiers by installing the software onto their mobile devices and presenting them to an entity checking their respective passports. Otherwise, the Abt’s system would not appear to serve a purpose. Thus, it can be seen that the user consented to the transfer of the digital file by presenting it to the customs office of figure 4, item 205. See also Patel: 0006, the granted permissions).
4. As for claims 3, 11, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 9, and 17 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught wherein the request for the mobile passport is a sequential request for the mobile passport and a mobile visa, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting the mobile passport and the mobile visa to the inspection system based at least in part on the sequential request (figure 4, item 410, where this is taught, at least by the passport ID number and the digital file requiring to data calls by a computing system).
5. As for claims 4 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught wherein the request comprises a first request, and wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the mobile passport to the inspection system based at least in part on the first request; receiving a second request, subsequent to the first request, for a mobile visa; and transmitting the mobile visa based at least in part on the second request (figure 4, item 410, where this is taught, at least by the passport ID number and the digital file requiring to data calls by a computing system. It can also be taught under BRI by the different file transfer packet requests that are made for the different files).
6. As for claims 5, 13, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 9, and 18 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught wherein the mobile supplemental document comprises a mobile passport number associated with the mobile passport, wherein the mobile passport number further links the mobile supplemental document to the mobile passport (0045-0046).
7. As for claims 6 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught wherein the method further comprises storing the mobile passport private key and the mobile supplemental document private key in a secure location of the device (0017).
8. As for claims 7 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught wherein the inspection system is associated with a first jurisdiction and the mobile passport is associated with a second jurisdiction (0019. See also: 0028).
9. As for claims 8 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Abt taught wherein the mobile supplemental document is a mobile travel record (0021).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443