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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 14-16 are new added. Claim 1-16 currently are examined.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, 6, 7, and 8, the registered region or country is indefinite because there was no step of registering. There is now a storing step which appears to register the region of country of the user. However, the storing step does not require or mention ‘registering’. It is therefore unclear if the region or country in the URL database is the antecedent basis every time registered region or country is later recited.
Furthermore, the claims state the first/second attribute are a region or a country. Then the claim states ‘configured to store, in a URL database, a region of a country…of a center device corresponding to the region or country. The claim does not make it clear how these are separate from the region or country that are user attributes. Is the user linked to region X and a center device having URL is linked to region X? Or does the user linking information simply point to URL at region X as its center device? The phrase “a login URL of a center device” is introduced in the storage unit clause and then repeated in the newly amended step (iii). These issues stem from claim 1 but similarly appear in the other independent claims (6-8).
Claim 4 is now problematic because of the changes to claim 1. Is the second region different than the registered region since it was stored in the storage unit? In step (iii) the request destination is the registered region or country of the second user. In claim 4, the routing device the request goes to the second center device in the second region. In each case, the authentication information of the second user came from the first center device.
Claim 5, is now treated as an independent claim incorporating by reference some of its terms from claim 1. It also incorporates some indefiniteness. Claim 5 says it is the second center device of claim 1. However, it performs the role that ‘a center device’ corresponding to the registered region or country from the URL database accomplishes in claim 1. So again, the question is raised regarding the association of ‘a center device’ and the second center device.
As per claim 14, the terms repeats terms already defined in claim 1 (registered region or country of the second user, a current region or country).
As per claim 15, the service provider lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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 § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP Application Publication 2009/0320114 to Guo et al., hereinafter Guo.
As per claim 5, Guo teaches the management center device that is the second center device capable of communicating with the routing device of claim 1 [intended use, no patentable weight other than capable of communicating; Fig. 6] comprising:
an authentication unit configured to
manage the authentication information of the second user (0038-0039), and perform an authentication process of the second user in response to receiving (0039), at a login URL of the management center device to which an authentication request is routed by the routing device a request to perform the authentication process of the second user [server at realm B routed the user to realm A’s server by its URL for authenticating the second user; 0039].
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 and in view of Guo.
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 (i) each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country,
(ii) storing, in a URL database, a region or a country and a login URL of a center device corresponding to the region or country in association with each other,
(iii) acquiring based on the registered region or country of the second user a login URL of a center device corresponding to the registered region or country from the URL database, and switching a destination of an authentication request to the acquired login URL.
Guo teaches (i) each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country [user ID in realm list 0028],
(ii) storing, in a URL database, a region or a country and a login URL of a center device corresponding to the region or country in association with each other (0029 and 0038),
(iii) acquiring based on the registered region or country of the second user a login URL of a center device corresponding to the registered region or country from the URL database (0038), and switching a destination of an authentication request to the acquired login URL (0039). Guo keeps an association between a user’s home realm and that realms account authority device along with its URL. In practice that means a user can be matched to the authorization server of its home realm when the user tries to access resources of a different realm. The user request is switched to the his/her home registered region seamlessly by obtaining the URL of the registered realm’s authority server. This feature provides a way to access resources in other federated realms without going through and creating separate credentials for each realm. 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.
Parham is silent in explicitly teaching acquiring a current region or country of the second user. Kremer teaches acquiring a current region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 42-45]. Thus, the employee 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, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
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 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham in view of Kremer, Guo, 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 (i) each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country,
(ii) storing, in a URL database, a region or a country and a login URL of a center device corresponding to the region or country in association with each other,
(iii) acquire based on the registered region or country of the second user a login URL of a center device corresponding to the registered region or country from the URL database, and switching a destination of an authentication request to the acquired login URL.
Guo teaches (i) each of the first attribute and the second attribute is a region or country [user ID in realm list 0028],
(ii) storing, in a URL database, a region or a country and a login URL of a center device corresponding to the region or country in association with each other (0029 and 0038),
(iii) acquiring based on the registered region or country of the second user a login URL of a center device corresponding to the registered region or country from the URL database (0038), and switching a destination of an authentication request to the acquired login URL (0039). Guo keeps an association between a user’s home realm and that realms account authority device along with its URL. In practice that means a user can be matched to the authorization server of its home realm when the user tries to access resources of a different realm. The user request is switched to the his/her home registered region seamlessly by obtaining the URL of the registered realm’s authority server. This feature provides a way to access resources in other federated realms without going through and creating separate credentials for each realm. 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.
Parham is silent in explicitly teaching acquiring a current region or country of the second user. Kremer teaches acquiring a current region or country of the second user [col. 5, lines 42-45]. Thus, the employee 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 12, the combination of Parham, Guo, and Kremer teaches the region is a geographical area smaller than a country [Kremer: Fig. 4].
As per claim 13, the combination of Parham, Guo, 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].
As per claim 14, the combination of Parham, Guo, and Kremer teaches the storage unit further includes a region determination database that stores, in association with one another, a service user ID of the second user, a registered region or country of the second user [Guo: 0028], and a current region or country of the second user [Kremer: col. 5, lines 52-55 and 59-60].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and correcting all of the inherited indefiniteness of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 - Friday, 9:30am - 5:30pm, 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
Prosecution Insights