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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/396,632 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claims 1, 2, and 6-9 have been amended. Claims 11 and 12 are added. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under this statute have been overcome by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6-8 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.
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) 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP Application Publication 2005/0066160 to Parham et al., hereinafter Parham in view of USP 9,554,279 to Kremer et al., hereinafter Kremer.
As per claim 6, Parham teaches a user authentication method comprising steps of:
acquiring second attribute (0047) corresponding to a second user from a table [identity catalog] that defines first linking information that links a first attribute [authenticating authority] and a first user [email identity] belonging to the first attribute and second linking information that links a second attribute and a second user belonging to the second attribute (0044-0045), in response to receiving authentication information of the second user from a first center device corresponding to the first attribute (0044-0046);
acquiring a registered region or country of the second user (0032 and 0037);
and
requesting the second center device corresponding to the registered region (0032 and 0037) or country of the second user to perform an authentication process of the second user (0046).
Parham teaches in the catalog there can be a mapping between the principal users’ IDs and authentication center based on the principal’s geographic region (0032 and 0037). Parham is silent in explicitly teaching each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country, acquiring a current region or country of the second user; determining a destination center device for authentication based on both the current region or country and the registered region or country of the second user. On the other hand, Kremer teaches each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country [AAA is the registered geographical area where the employees can log in; col. 5, lines 17-27], acquiring a current region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 42-45]; determining a destination center device for authentication based on both the current region or country and the registered region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 55-60]. Thus, the employe is judged whether their current region is close to their registered region. Parham already teaches user are mapped to their authentication centers based on geographical location. The combination shows that the current location can be set to enforce that the user is close to their respective registered authentication at the time of authentication. The combination improves the security of authentication by only allowing authentication to occur within certain geographic regions. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
As per claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 8, Parham teaches a management center device used in a system equipped with a first center device, a second center device and a routing device, the management center device comprising: the first center device [device containing Auth 411],
wherein the first center device is configured to manage authentication information of a first user belonging to a first attribute [authenticate its principals; 0033 and 0047], the second center device [selected appropriate authority in this example] is configured to manage authentication information of a second user belonging to a second attribute [authenticate its principals; 0033 and 0047],
the routing device [super authority 401] is configured
to store first linking information that links the first attribute and the first user, and second linking information that links the second attribute and the second user [identity catalog 407; 0040],
acquiring a registered region or country of the second user (0032 and 0037);
and
transmit information regarding the acquired second attribute to the first center device corresponding to the registered region (0032 and 0037) or country of the second user [refer/convey back to initial auth which auth is selected as appropriate; 0046],
the first center device is configured to request the center device corresponding to the registered region or country of the second user to perform an authentication process of the second user, in response to receiving information regarding the second attribute from the routing device [passed to appropriate authenticating authority; 0046].
Parham is silent in explicitly teaching each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country, acquiring a current region or country of the second user; determining a destination center device for authentication based on both the current region or country and the registered region or country of the second user. On the other hand, Kremer teaches each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country [AAA is the registered geographical area where the employees can log in; col. 5, lines 17-27], acquiring a current region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 42-45]; determining a destination center device for authentication based on both the current region or country and the registered region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 55-60]. Thus, the employe is judged whether their current region is close to their registered region. Parham already teaches user are mapped to their authentication centers based on geographical location. The combination shows that the current location can be set to enforce that the user is close to their respective registered authentication at the time of authentication. The combination improves the security of authentication by only allowing authentication to occur within certain geographic regions. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
As per claim 9, Parham teaches the first center device is configured to perform the authentication process of the first user in response to a request for authentication process of the first user from the second center device [this is the example where the initial auth is the appropriate auth for the PRINC that made the request; 0042].
As per claim 10, Parham does not explicitly teach the management center device includes the routing device. Parham teaches a multiple networked entities and shows the management center (the auth devices) separate from the super auth. However, they are all interconnected by a network. Choosing to combine or separate two network functions is merely a design choice based on factors that are deemed beneficial for a given implementation. What is important and must be intact is the ability for the auth to contact the super auth. If they happen to be in the same geographic space, it is obvious they could be implemented in practice on the same hardware. Computer hardware like that shown in Fig. 1 is suggested by Parham can comprise the auth devices and the super authority devices (0024). Thus, if they were both installed on the same hardware there would be a predictable expectation of success. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement an auth device and the super authority devices together if that design choice presented benefits for a given region. As mentioned, the choice would have been obvious to consolidate the two devices on one hardware server (0022) if it would consolidate hardware at a given location. Nothing about the invention would change by have them both run as intended on shared hardware.
As per claim 11, Parham teaches the first attribute includes a first region [domain] to which the first user belongs, the second attribute includes a second region [domain]to which the second user belongs (0044),
and the routing device is configured to, in response to receiving the authentication information of the second user from the first center device installed in the first region, acquire the second region corresponding the second user from the second linking information and request the second center device installed in the second region to perform the authentication process of the second user [example where the PRINC makes initially contacts an MSN domain and after determining the PRINC belongs to a Microsoft domain, has the request sent to an auth for the Microsoft domain; 0044-0046].
Claims 1-5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham in view of Kremer and in view of USP 8,583,317 to Nishida.
As per claim 1, Parham teaches a routing device [super authority] capable of communicating with a first center device and a second center device related to providing a service (0033), the routing device comprising:
a storage unit [ID catalog] configured to store first linking information that links a first attribute and a first user belonging to the first attribute, and second linking information that links a second attribute and a second user belonging to the second attribute [each user has its email linked to an authority center; 0040]; and a routing control unit [authority resolution logic; 405] configured to, in response to receiving authentication information of the second user [PRINC A] from the first center device [auth 411] corresponding to the first attribute,
acquiring a registered region or country of the second user from the storage unit (0032 and 0037);
and request the center device corresponding to the registered region or country of the second user to perform an authentication process of the second user [0042, 0044-0047].
Parham does not explicitly teach a service to a first vehicle linked with a first user and a second vehicle linked with a second user or any particular type of service. Nishida teaches a service to a first vehicle linked with a first user and a second vehicle linked with a second user (col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 2). Nishida applies authentication from vehicles to networks management centers. Thus, it was known for users to be connected to their vehicle and have an appropriate server for authentication purposes. Parham’s general network protocol could have applied to an environment where vehicles are linked to their user. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results. Applying the authentication procedure to user linked to vehicles is merely a different type of domain.
Parham teaches in the catalog there can be a mapping between the principal users’ IDs and authentication center based on the principal’s geographic region (0032 and 0037). Parham is silent in explicitly teaching each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country, acquiring a current region or country of the second user; determining a destination center device for authentication based on both the current region or country and the registered region or country of the second user. On the other hand, Kremer teaches each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country [AAA is the registered geographical area where the employees can log in; col. 5, lines 17-27], acquiring a current region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 42-45]; determining a destination center device for authentication based on both the current region or country and the registered region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 55-60]. Thus, the employe is judged whether their current region is close to their registered region. Parham already teaches user are mapped to their authentication centers based on geographical location. The combination shows that the current location can be set to enforce that the user is close to their respective registered authentication at the time of authentication. The combination improves the security of authentication by only allowing authentication to occur within certain geographic regions. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
As per claim 2, Parham teaches in response to receiving the authentication information of the first user from the first center device corresponding to the first attribute, the routing control unit acquires the first attribute corresponding to the first user from the storage unit, and requests the first center device corresponding to the first attribute to perform the authentication process of the first user [example where the PRINC makes initially contacts an MSN domain and after determining the PRINC belongs to a Microsoft domain, has the request sent to an auth for the Microsoft domain; 0044-0046].
As per claim 3, it is rejection for the same reasons as claim 10.
As per claim 4, Parham teaches the first attribute includes a first region [domain] to which the first user belongs, the second attribute includes a second region [domain]to which the second user belongs (0044),
and the routing control unit is configured to, in response to receiving the authentication information of the second user from the first center device installed in the first region, acquire the second region corresponding the second user from the second linking information and request the second center device installed in the second region to perform the authentication process of the second user [example where the PRINC makes initially contacts an MSN domain and after determining the PRINC belongs to a Microsoft domain, has the request sent to an auth for the Microsoft domain; 0044-0046].
As per claim 5, Parham teaches the management center device comprising: an authentication unit configured to manage the authentication information of the second user, and perform an authentication process of the second user in response to receiving a request to perform the authentication process of the second user (0047).
As per claim 12, the combination of Parham and Kremer teaches the region is a geographical area smaller than a country [Kremer: Fig. 4].
As per claim 13, the combination of Parham and Kremer teaches the region is identified by a region code stored in a database [Kremer: AAA set for each user: col. 5, lines 25-30].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30am - 5:00pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431