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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4-8, 11-14 and 17-20 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "stored on a second ancillary partition at an edge device". It is unclear if this is the same edge device that is previously recited in the claim. This renders claim 1 and all claims that depend from it unclear and indefinite. This issue is repeated in claims 8 and 14.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "a response to the second prompt at edge devices". It is unclear if these edge devices are the same edge devices that are previously recited in the claim, or possibly other edge devices not yet claimed. This renders claim 1 and all claims that depend from it unclear and indefinite. This issue is repeated in claims 8 and 14.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al., USPN 2018/0357412, in view of Hamel et al., USPN 2021/0367778.
With regard to claims 1, Mehta discloses a computer-implemented method for secure cross partition access and computing device recovery (0020), the computer-implemented method including detecting an unsuccessful attempt by a user to access a primary partition of a computing device (0034, 0050), wherein the computing device includes one or more ancillary partitions (0034, 0017, 0051), receiving a request from the user to initiate a recovery process for the computing device (0018, 0062-0063, 0071, 0073), based on receiving the request, presenting to the user a first prompt stored on a first ancillary partition of the one or more ancillary partitions (0020, 0071, 0086), wherein a first portion of an authentication credential is stored on the first ancillary partition at an edge device (0090), based on receiving a response to the first prompt, presenting to the user a second prompt stored on a second ancillary partition at an edge device, wherein a second portion of the authentication credential is stored on the second ancillary partition (0020, 0071, 0086), and authenticating the user using complete reconstituted authentication credentials based on the response to the first prompt and a response to the second prompt at edge devices (0090, 0091), and unlocking the primary partition using the reconstituted authentication credential (0083, 0092). Mehta discloses multiple partitions storing the recover password (0096, 0099, 0083), but does not disclose that each partition stores a portion of the recovery credential and generating a complete reconstituted authentication credential by unlocking the first ancillary partition and decrypting the first portion of the authentication credential using a first decryption key and unlocking the second ancillary partition and decrypting the second portion of the authentication credential using a second decryption key. Hamel discloses a method of using a recovery key (0026) similar to that of Mehta, and further discloses splitting the key and storing it in separate memories (0016, 0020) and generating a complete reconstituted authentication credential (0026, 0029) by unlocking the first ancillary partition (identification validation) and decrypting the first portion of the authentication credential using a first decryption key (0018) and unlocking the second ancillary partition and decrypting the second portion of the authentication credential using a second decryption key (0019). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to implement the split key and complete key generation of Hamel in the recovery method of Mehta for the motivation of added security by not having the entire recovery key stored in one place, a stated motivation of Hamel (0020).
With regard to claims 4, 8, 11, 14, and 17, Mehta in view of Hamel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Hamel further discloses each portion of the authentication credential is stored in encrypted form (0018), wherein generating the reconstituted authentication credential includes unlocking the partition and decrypting the it using a specific decryption key of that portion corresponding the specific encryption key used to encrypt that portion (0016-0018). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to implement the encrypted key share of Hamel in the method of Mehta in view of Hamel for the motivation of improved security.
With regard to claims 5, 12, and 18, Mehta in view of Hamel discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Mehta further discloses the first prompt and the second prompt are selected from one or more prompts generated from a user knowledge database, wherein the user knowledge database includes information regarding the user (0020, 0109).
With regard to claims 6, 13, and 19, Mehta in view of Hamel discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Mehta further discloses prompting the user (0071, 0078), but does not disclose using an NGL algorithm based on the information regarding the user. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to use an NGL algorithm to communicate with a user. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to prompt the user of Mehta in view of Hamel using an NGL algorithm for the motivation of improved user experience and insuring receiving the desired input.
With regard to claims 7 and 20, Mehta in view of Hamel discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Mehta further discloses the authentication credential comprises a username and password (0062).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues and underlines that, “at no point does the cited prior art teach or suggest generating a complete reconstituted authentication credential based on authentication at two edge devices and unlocking the partition at those different edge device and, also unlocking partition at main computing device. In this way, using the edge devices the system may unlock both the edge devices and the computing device using secure cross partition access and computing device recovery.“ The examiner points out, as outlined above, that Hamel discloses recovering full credentials from key splits at two different edge devices (0016-0029). The examiner further points out that the claims do not recite two different edge devices, as outlined above, and clarification is required.
References Cited
Ulqinaku et al., WO 2022/223136 A1, discloses a method splitting shares to partition them, and to allow recovery (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights