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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/10/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are currently pending in the filing of 2/10/2026, claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 were pending in the previous filing of 11/10/2025, and thus, no claims have been added or cancelled.
Response to Applicant’s Amendments / Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant’s remarks, on pages 8-12 of the response / amendment, the applicant argues the features which allegedly distinguish over the previously cited references cited in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
On the top of page 8 regarding Kitagawa, the middle of page 8 regarding Reimer, and throughout page 9 regarding both Kitagawa and Reimer, the applicant argues that Kitagawa and Reimer fail to tach “ranking prevalence of the user-preferred answer among an associated population of users; … storing the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions and the user selection indication of a lowest ranked prevalence of the user-preferred answer …” Examiner notes that the previous office action does not assert that Kitagawa teaches these features, and that the previous office action asserts that Reimer only teaches, “
The applicant in the second to last paragraph of page 9 asserts that Basson does not teach “rank predefined user-selected answers by population prevalence … storing the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions and the user selection indication of a lowest ranked prevalence of the user-preferred answer …”, to which the examiner disagrees, as discussed below. The previous office action argued that Basson [0037-39] & [0042-46] teach ranking prevalence / scoring of answers and that fig. 6, [0043-45] teach answer analyzer teaches analyzing answers and storing the unique answers. For example, [0038] teaches that a question like places lived would include answers like Timbuktu which is unique while an answer like New York City would be characterized as being given by a large number of users. [0043] teaches scoring the answers including determining unique answers and identifying answers with little scoring value (e.g., New York City) and those with high scoring value (e.g., Timbuktu). Thus, Basson teaches both ranking prevalence of answers and storing the answers that have high and low scores. The applicant on page 9 asserts that Basson fails to teach performing the above features during enrollment / registration. However, Kitagawa at cited portion [0163] teaches performing question / answer during registration. Further, Basson, while not explicitly using the word enrollment or registration is directed to questions and answers that are used for a user to access an account ([0036]), where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is performed during user registration / enrollment. Additionally, regarding the rejection of claim 5 which relies on Pender, as argued at the top of page 9, the applicant notes that Pender is not relied upon for teaching the above features of claim 1. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged failures of Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson, as well as Pender, as allegedly not teaching both ranking prevalence of answers and storing the answers that have high and/or low scores are not persuasive during registration are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 regarding “rank predefined user-selected answers by population prevalence … storing the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions and the user selection indication of a lowest ranked prevalence of the user-preferred answer …”, will be maintained.
The remarks on page 8 regarding Kitagawa and Reimer, applicant argues an alleged failure to teach “displaying, via a user interface, a first plurality of predefined authentication questions, each of the predefined authentication questions having a second plurality of corresponding predefined answers; displaying, in response to the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions, at least a subset of the second plurality of corresponding predefined answers;”. The examiner asserts that Kitagawa teaches these features in fig. 18 which teach predefined answers / list of questions and answers, as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 Kitagawa above
Cited portion of Kitagawa [0162-163] teach registrations / enrollment using question / answer. Cited portions of Kitagawa at [0165-167] teach the question answers where the answers are listed as “selection lists” of fig. 18, such as what is your mother’s data of birth, where the answer is 1-31, with 31 selection numbers. Thus, Kitagawa teaches these features. It should also be noted that the previous Office action asserted that Basson also teaches other features related to displaying the ranked prevalence answers choices, as discussed above. Thus, the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged failure to teach, “displaying, via a user interface, a first plurality of predefined authentication questions, each of the predefined authentication questions having a second plurality of corresponding predefined answers; displaying, in response to the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions, at least a subset of the second plurality of corresponding predefined answers;” is not persuasive in view of the above discussed teaches of Kitagawa, which were included in the previous Office action. Therefore, this portion of the rejection will also be maintained.
On the top of page 10 the applicant then argues that the Reimer’s use, and through implication, Basson’s usage, of other customer’s data to ensure reasonable inaccurate answers would change Reimer’s principle of operation and is not suggested by the art. Examiner disagrees. First, the motivation for the combination states that all of Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson are directed to the art of Question – Answers used in authentication. Second, Basson teaches using knowledge of common answers (e.g., New York City) and unique answers (e.g., Timbuktu) which ranks \ scores answers given by multiple users, and the motivation for the combination is clearly stated as “Kitagawa and Reimer with the added ability to use answer analysis, as taught by Basson.” The answer analyzer of fig. 6 of Basson teaches analyzing answers to score answers as unique, as discussed above. Thus, the applicant’s remarks on the top of page 10 regarding alleged deficiencies of the motivation to combine the references are not persuasive. Therefore, the combination of Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson will be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on the rest of claim 10 and page 11 allege that independent claims 8 and 16, and their dependent claims are allowable for the reasons given for claim 1. The alleged arguments for claim 1, as discussed above, were not persuasive, and thus independent claims 8 and 16 are also rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, and thus, the rejection will be maintained.
Claim Interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a nonstructural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for'') or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder. First, (e.g., comparison module) that is coupled with functional language (e.g., " ... for verifying that a user-selected preferred answer matches ... ") without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such limitations are in claim 16. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (e.g., the structural/physical connections shown in fig. 3 and paragraph [0029] of the applicant's printed publication by the comparison module 316, which is part of security server 210 / 310.) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 20080201576 to Kitagawa et al. (hereinafter Kitagawa), in view of US 20240028690 to Reimer (hereinafter Reimer), in view of US 20090265770 to Basson et al. (hereinafter Basson).
Regarding claim 1, Kitagawa teaches,
A computer-implemented method for user enrollment and authentication for access to a service using shared secret questions, comprising: ([0162] reminder question answers.)
during an enrollment phase: ([0163] teaches registering including question and answer selection, and also fig. 20, S401 and S402 reminder Q&A registration, which also depicts authentication in S451 to S455 using the registered questions and answers.)
displaying, via a user interface, ([0034] describes fig. 18 as a list of questions (and answers) for user selection. Figs. 17 & 20 depict terminal 20b connected to server 30. [0179] teaches that terminal 20b includes a display screen for displaying information.) a first plurality of predefined authentication questions, each of the predefined authentication questions having a second plurality of corresponding predefined answers; (Fig. 18 and [0165] teach predefined questions and predefined answers listed for user selection. [0167] gives the example of the question “what is your mother’s date of birth” is selected by the user from the first selection on the list in fig. 18, the user is given a selection list of 1 through 31, corresponding to the question, also shown in fig. 18.)
receiving, in response to the displaying, a user selection indication of one or more selected authentication question from the first plurality of predefined authentication questions; ([0167] teaches user selecting question from a list of questions, shown under heading “CHOCIES” in fig. 18.)
displaying, in response to the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions, at least a subset of the second plurality of corresponding predefined answers; ([0167] teaches, after selecting question “what is your mother’s date of birth?”, the user being given the selection of numbers 1 to 31, as shown by “SELECTION LISTS” of fig. 18.)
receiving a user selection indication of a user-preferred answer from the second plurality of corresponding predefined answers; ([0167] teaches user selecting the answer from the list.)
storing the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions and the user selection indication of ([0162-163] teaches reminder-question-and-answer register means (module) 114 of fig. 17, which is attached to reminder-question-and-answer storage unit 104. [0171] teaches module 104 as part of server 30 of fig. 17. Also, fig 20 S452 depicts questions and answer choices transmitted from the server 30 to the terminal 20b.)
during an authentication phase: ([0172-173] and fig. 20, “Password Re-Issuance” in S451 to S455 teach an authentication before password re-issuance.)
displaying a selected authentication question ([0172-173] and fig. 20, S452 teaches transmitting combination of question and answer choices to terminal 20b from server 30, and S453 teaches terminal 20b transmitting answer replies to server 30.)
the (fig. 20, S453 teaches the answers replies are transmitted to server 30 from the terminal 20b.)
one or more predefined choices corresponding to the user selection indication of the selected authentication question, ([0173] teaches answer choices, where one of the choices is the user’s registered answer.)
receiving a user selection indication from the third plurality of choices; ([0173] and fig. 20, S453 teach the answer reply being sent to the server 30.)
verifying that the user selection indication from the third plurality of choices matches the stored user selection of the user-preferred answer to the one or more selected authentication questions; and (fig. 20, S454 described at [0173] teaches the selected answers are matched, and a verification result re-issues the password.)
responsive to the verification, authenticating the user for access to the service. ([0173] teaches reissuing of password, which allows the user to access a system, after the answers are matched.)
Kitagawa fails to teach using answer choices from other users as the ,
However, Reimer teaches,
([0092] teaches using other user’s inaccurate answers as potential answers that are not the correct answer, and also teaches selecting reasonable inaccurate answers that are sufficiently different and not to close to the accurate answer. [0060] & [0062] teach multiple choice answers including an accurate answer and three incorrect answers. Note, fig. 4, [0052] & [0060] teaches analytics data for multiple users at 105, and incorrect answers being generated at S116, where [0062] teaches that the incorrect answers are also reasonable.)
one or more predefined choices corresponding to the user selection indication of the selected authentication question, wherein the one or more predefined choices are selected from the second plurality of corresponding predefined answers that are not the user-preferred answer; ([0092] teaches selecting inaccurate answers that are reasonable, e.g., from commonly selected user answers as taught in S116 discussed above. [0093] teaches an option of "none of the above.") (See applicant’s printed publication at [0034] that describes selected choices that are different than the user’s enrollment / registration answer, and also teaches an answer of “none of the above.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kitagawa, which teaches pre-defined question and corresponding pre-defined answers that are chosen by a user, from selectable lists, during registration, for the purpose of future authentication (password re-issuance), where the multiple questions and corresponding answer, gathered during registration, are then used to authenticate the user (fig. 18 & [0162-167]), with Reimer, which also teaches question-answer authentication (Abstract), and additionally teaches using selected answers as answer choices, where the inaccurate answers are selected from other users (S116 of fig. 4), for a user being authenticated ([0092-93]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kitagawa with the added ability to utilize selected answers that are based on commonly selected user answers by other users, as taught by Reimer, for the purpose of increasing security by providing answers that are commonly selected by other users, to prevent the display of obviously incorrect answers.
Kitagawa and Reimer fail to teach ranking answers and using questions & answers where the answers are difficult to guess due to uniqueness,
However, Basson teaches,
ranking prevalence of the user-preferred answer among an associated population of users; and ([0037-39] teach using global user characteristics and global answers and comparing to the user’s answer. Specifically, [0037-38] teaches a cross section of users under the Question: “places lived”, where an answer of New York City would be common, while the answer of “Timbuktu” would be unique / “ranking”, which is based on multiple user’s answers, where [0039] teaches performing the comparison to determine uniqueness of the user’s answer. In detail, [0039] teaching comparing characteristics stored in the system, where [0042] teaches scoring a user answer based on key words as compared to answers stored in the system to determine the uniqueness of a user’s answers against other answers / characteristics stored in the system. Fig. 6 & answer analyzer 77 that includes further teaching of the scoring of answers. [0043-46] further teaches scoring of the answers based on uniqueness of the answers. [0045] specifically teaches scoring / “ranking” questions and answers based on how unique the response / answer is, such as “tell me what unique characteristics you have?” to which the answer I have something unique on my knee / birth mark on my knee would be scored / “ranked” as a unique characteristic because very few other users do not have this unique birth mark.)
storing the user selection indication of the one or more selected authentication questions and the user selection indication of a lowest ranked prevalence of the user-preferred answer to the one or more selected authentication questions; (fig. 6 teaches a user answer analyzer. [0043] teaches answer analyzer scoring question-answers based on the frequency of the answers. [0045] teaches using a high security question as opposed to a low security / generic question.)
displaying a selected authentication question corresponding to the lowest ranked prevalence of the user-preferred answer and a third plurality of choices for the user to select, the third plurality of choices comprising one or more of: (fig. 6 teaches a user answer analyzer. [0045] teaches using a high security question as opposed to a low security / generic question.)
the lowest ranked prevalence of the user-preferred answer corresponding to the selected authentication question; (fig. 6 teaches a user answer analyzer. [0045] teaches using a high security question as opposed to a low security / generic question.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kitagawa, which teaches pre-defined question and corresponding pre-defined answers that are chosen by a user, from selectable lists, during registration, for the purpose of future authentication (password re-issuance), where the multiple questions and corresponding answer, gathered during registration, are then used to authenticate the user (fig. 18 & [0162-167]), with Reimer, which also teaches question-answer authentication (Abstract), and additionally teaches using selected answers as answer choices, where the inaccurate answers are selected from other users, for a user being authenticated ([0092-93]), with Basson, which also teaches question-answer authentication (Abstract & [0037-41]) and like Basson teaches use of other user’s answers, and additionally teaches answer analysis and scoring using global user answers to determine the uniqueness of the answer, and selecting questions based on uniqueness score of the answer ([0038-39] & [0041-45] & fig. 6, answer analyzer 77). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kitagawa and Reimer with the added ability to use answer analysis, as taught by Basson, to increase security by selecting authentication / security questions that have uncommon answers, and thus, making the questions more difficult to randomly guess.
Regarding claim 2, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the third plurality of choices is characterized by a uniform format. (Kitagawa, [0167] teaches that the formats of the questions and answers are consistent, by being selectable. Fig. 18 shows that question 1, has 31 selectable number choices 1 to 31 for the date of mother’s birth.) (Applicant’s printed publication at [0032] teaches that “selectable answers have uniform structure and formatting.” The answers are then provided to the user to choose.)
Regarding claim 3, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the third plurality of choices has relevancy to the selected authentication question. (Kitagawa, [0167] teaches that the selectable answers are relevant to the corresponding questions. Question “What is your mother’s birthday?”, has corresponding answers to be selected as 1 to 31 for the day of her birth. This is also shown in fig. 18. Fig. 18 also shows that question 1, has 31 selectable number choices.)
Regarding claim 6, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 1,
wherein the third plurality of choices comprises one or more false choices. (Reimer, [0092] teaches selecting inaccurate answers at random from commonly selected user answers. [0093] teaches an option of "none of the above.") (See applicant’s printed publication at [0034] that describes randomly selected choices that are different than the user’s enrollment / registration answer, and also teaches an answer of “none of the above.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kitagawa, which teaches pre-defined question and corresponding pre-defined answers that are chosen by a user, from selectable lists, during registration, for the purpose of future authentication (password re-issuance), where the multiple questions and corresponding answer, gathered during registration, are then used to authenticate the user (fig. 18 & [0162-167]), with Reimer, which also teaches question-answer authentication (Abstract), and additionally teaches using selected answers as answer choices, where the inaccurate answers are selected from other users, for a user being authenticated, which also teaches question-answer authentication, and additionally teaches using randomly selected inaccurate (false) answers as answer choices for a user being authenticated ([0092-93]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kitagawa with the added ability to utilize randomly selected inaccurate answers that are based on commonly selected user answers, as taught by Reimer, for the purpose of increasing security by providing answers that are commonly selected by other users, to prevent the display of obviously incorrect answers.
Regarding claim 7, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the user-preferred answer is stored and displayed in a format that does not require the user to remember text formatting of the user-preferred answer. ([0167] teaches that the selectable answers are relevant to the corresponding questions. Question “What is your mother’s birthday?”, has corresponding answers that are formatted as 1 to 31 for the day of her birth, thus preventing slight differences from being rejected. This is also shown in fig. 18. Fig. 18 also shows that question 1, has 31 selectable number choices.) (See applicant’s printed publication at [0061] that describes formatting that is standardized, which prevents text case or punctuation from not being recognized as a proper answer. For example, standard text choice of “Los Angles” being presented as a choice, prevents someone from entering “Los-Angeles” or “Los Angeles, CA” which results in a non-match.)
Regarding claim 8, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
A computer-implemented method for user authentication for access to a service using shared secret questions, comprising:
displaying a user-selected authentication question corresponding to a lowest ranked prevalence of a user-preferred answer and a corresponding plurality of choices for the user to select, the plurality of choices comprising one or more of:
a previously selected and lowest ranked prevalence user-preferred answer corresponding to the user-selected authentication question; and
one or more predefined choices corresponding to a user-selection indication of the user-selected authentication question, wherein the one or more predefined choices are selected from the plurality of choices that are not the user-preferred answer;
receiving a user selection indication;
verifying that the user selection indication matches a previously stored user selection of the user-preferred answer to the selected authentication question; and
responsive to the verification, authenticating the user for access to the service.
Claim 8 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above, specifically the portion of the rejection of claim 1 after “during an authentication phase” is particularly relevant to the above recited features of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of choices is characterized by a uniform format.
Claim 9 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of choices has relevancy to the selected authentication question.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, Kitagawa and Reimer teach,
The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of choices comprises one or more answers as false choices.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 8, wherein the user-preferred answer is stored and displayed in a format that does not require the user to remember text formatting of the user-preferred answer.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more predefined choices corresponding to the user selection indication of the selected authentication question are characterized by a uniform format and have relevance to the selected authentication question.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
A system for user authentication using shared secret questions, the system comprising: (Kitagawa, [0162] reminder question answers.)
a data repository configured for storing predefined authentication questions, predefined choices, user-selected predefined authentication questions, and user-selected answer choices; (Kitagawa, [0162-163] teaches reminder-question-and-answer register means (module) 114 of fig. 17, which is attached to reminder-question-and-answer storage unit 104. [0171] teaches module 104 as part of server 30 of fig. 17. Also, fig 20 S452 depicts questions and answer choices transmitted from the server 30 to the terminal 20b.)
a user interface configured for displaying the predefined authentication questions and receiving user selection indication of a preferred answer from a list of the predefined choices; (Kitagawa, fig. 18 and [0034] teaches a list of questions and answers.)
a comparison module configured for verifying that a user-selected preferred answer matches a previously selected preferred answer from the predefined choices; (Kitagawa, fig. 20, S454 described at [0173] teaches the selected answers are matched, and a verification result re-issues the password.)
at least one memory for storing data and computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions that cause the at least one processor to: (Kitagawa, [0115])
The portions of claim 16 beneath are rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above, specifically the portion of the rejection of claim 1 after “during an authentication phase” is particularly relevant to the below recited features of claim 16.
display, via the user interface, a user previously selected authentication question corresponding to a lowest ranked prevalence of a user-preferred answer, and a plurality of corresponding choices for the user to select, the plurality of corresponding choices comprising one or more of:
a previously selected user-preferred answer corresponding to the user's previously selected authentication question; and
one or more predefined choices corresponding to the user's previously selected authentication question, wherein the one or more predefined choices are selected from the plurality of corresponding choices that are not the user-preferred answer;;
receive, via the user interface, a user selection indication of a selected answer from the plurality of choices;
compare, via the comparison module, the user selection indication with a previously selected preferred answer from the predefined choices;
verify that the user selection indication matches the previously selected preferred answer from the predefined choices; and
responsive to the verification, authenticate the user for access to a service.
Regarding claim 17, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of choices are displayed using a uniform format and have relevancy to the selected authentication question.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of corresponding choices comprises one or more false choices.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The system of claim 16, wherein the user-preferred answer is stored and displayed in a format that does not require the user to remember text formatting of the user-preferred answer.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, in view of Reimer, in view of Basson, in view of US 20090276839 to Peneder (hereinafter Peneder)
Regarding claim 5, Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson teach,
The method of claim 1,
Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson fail to teach the weighting of answers based on an analysis of a population of users,
However, Peneder teaches,
wherein the first plurality of predefined authentication questions is displayed based on a weighting of the user-preferred answer selected during enrollment relative to answers selected by a population of users. ([0065] teaches statistically analyzing answers to determine different users selecting the same answer, and weighting the answers based on commonness or uniqueness of the answer.) (See applicant’s printed publication at [0059] that describes weighting being used to select unique answers among the answers provided by multiple users.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kitagawa, which teaches pre-defined question and corresponding pre-defined answers that are chosen by a user, from selectable lists, during registration, for the purpose of future authentication (password re-issuance), where the multiple questions and corresponding answer, gathered during registration, are then used to authenticate the user (fig. 18 & [0162-167]), with Reimer, which also teaches question-answer authentication (Abstract), and additionally teaches using selected answers as answer choices, where the inaccurate answers are selected from other users, for a user being authenticated ([0092-93]), with Basson, which also teaches question-answer authentication (Abstract & [0039-41]), and additionally teaches answer analysis and scoring using global user answers to determine the uniqueness of the answer, and selecting questions based on uniqueness score of the answer ([0041-45] & fig. 6, answer analyzer 77), with Peneder, which also teaches question answer authentication, and additionally teaches the use of statistical analysis of answers to determine a weighting of a particular answer if it commonly answered, so that the question is weighted to indicate that the question answer is common, and not as valuable for authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kitagawa, Reimer, and Basson with the added ability to statistically analyze the answers to questions based on the answer’s uniqueness, as taught by Peneder, for the purpose of increasing security by weighting questions that are unique.
Regarding claim 12, Kitagawa, Reimer, Basson, and Peneder teach,
The method of claim 8, wherein the user-selected authentication question is displayed based on a weighting.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kitagawa, Reimer, Basson, and Peneder teach,
The system of claim 16, wherein the user-selected authentication question is displayed based on a weighting.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
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 BRIAN WILLIAM AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-3942. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571)272-3739.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.W.A./
/JASON K GEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights