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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 10/20/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined. This office action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant states that the prior art of Logan does not disclose “providing the service to a user, via the local account to restore communication functionality of the computing device”. Logan discloses if the user cannot login because the identity provider (IDP) is not available means the federated authentication is not available; therefore, the local account, local short lived bearer token model is used to login to access online services by a relying party (Logan: para. 0009, 0026-0027). The local account restores communication functionality, because the user is allowed to login using the token.
Furthermore, there is no added details as to how the local account restores communication functionality of the computing device, para. 0018 of the Applicant’s specification merely repeats claim language without providing details of how it is actually accomplished.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. More specifically, claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 112(a) first paragraph. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is not disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure, “allow the user to restore communication functionality of the HIS includes program instructions to cause the processor to: allow the user to update a network address of the identity provider”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Logan et al. (2012/0260322).
As per claim 1, Logan discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request to login to a service offered by a computing device (Logan: para. 0026, see fig. 2, #210 receive user logon request);
performing a check to determine whether an identity provider is available, including attempting and failing to communicate with the identity provider (Logan: See Fig. 2, #215, para. 0027, 0046, outage detection component detects (i.e. attempting) the identity provider is unavailable (i.e. failing to communicate)); and
conditioning access to a local account of the computing device based on a result of performing the check, including providing the service to a user, via the local account, to allow the user to restore communication functionality of the computing device (Logan: para. 0027, 0033, See fig. 2 #260, when the identity provider is not available, token is generated, the token stores the user’s digital identity; therefore, the token is the local account, and when the token is used conditioned access because the user may be unable to provide advanced operations, restore communication functionality because the user is able to login to the computing device to access service).
As per claim 3, Logan discloses the method of claim 1. Logan further discloses wherein the check comprises: attempting send an authentication request to the identity provider (Logan: para. 0026, forwards the received authentication request to an identity provider).
As per claim 4, Logan discloses the method of claim 1. Logan further discloses wherein conditioning access to the local account of the computing device comprises: providing a prompt on a graphical user interface (GUI), associated with the computing device, the prompt indicating to a user to login using the local account, wherein providing the prompt is performed in response to the check indicating that the identity provider is not available (Logan: para. 0027, 0031, user interface to login using token).
As per claim 5, Logan discloses the method of claim 1. Logan further discloses wherein conditioning access to the local account of the computing device comprises: prohibiting access to the local account of the computing device in response to the check indicating that the identity provider is available (Logan: para. 0038-0039, if the identity provider is available federated authentication is used instead of token).
As per claim 6, Logan discloses the method of claim 1. Logan further discloses determining, based on the check, that the identity provider is not available; providing a prompt to a user to login by the local account; and providing the service to the user after successful login to the local account (Logan: para. 0027, 0031, prompt (i.e. GUI)).
As per claim 7, Logan discloses the method of claim 6. Logan further discloses setting a timer in response to successful login to the local account; in response to the timer expiring, performing a second check to determine whether the identity provider is available; and either allowing the user to continue using the local account or prohibiting access to the local account based on a result of the second check (Logan: para. 0049, token has set time period for example 20 minutes, when the identity provider because available, the federated authentication is used).
As per claim 8, Logan discloses an information handling system (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: provide login access to a resource by at least: a local account and a single sign-on (SSO) procedure employing communications with an identity provider over a network (Logan: para. 0037, 0044, local account (i.e. token) SSO (i.e. federated authentication)); receive a login request from a user, where the login request corresponds to the resource (Logan: See Fig. 2 #210);
determine that communication with the identity provider is not successfully established (Logan: para. 0027, identity provider is unavailable); and direct the user to use the local account based at least in part on communication with the identity provider not being successfully established (Logan: para. 0009, 0037-0038, determine whether the identity provider is unavailable, uses local short-lived bearer token model), provider resource, via the local account, to allow the user to restore communication functionality of the IHS (Logan: para. 0027, 0033, restore communication functionality because the user is able to login to the computing device to access service).
As per claim 11, Logan discloses the IHS of claim 8. Logan further discloses wherein the program instructions to cause the processor to direct the user includes program instructions to cause the processor to: prompt the user to employ the local account in response to determining that the communication with the identity provider is not successfully established (Logan: para. 0027, 0031, identity provider is unavailable the user is employed for token (i.e. local account)).
As per claim 13, Logan discloses the IHS of claim 11. Logan further discloses comprising instructions to cause the processor to: set a timer in response to login via the local account; determine, again, whether communication with the identity provider is successfully established; and block access to the resource via the local account in response to determining that communication with the identity provider is successfully established (Logan: para. 0049, token has set time period for example 20 minutes, when the identity provider because available, the federated authentication is used).
As per claim 15, Logan discloses a computer-readable, non-transitory memory device having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of an Information Handling System (IHS), cause the processor to: provide login access to a resource by at least: a local account and a single sign-on (SSO) procedure employing communications with an identity provider over a network (Logan: para. 0026-0027, local account (i.e. token), and SSO (i.e. federated authentication)); receive a request for the resource from a user; determine that the SSO procedure is not available for the request for the resource (Logan: para. 0009, 0026, determining the federated authentication (SSO) is not available when the identity provider is unavailable);
prompt the user to login via the local account (Logan: See Fig. 2, para. 0026-0027); and allow access to the resource via the local account in response to determining that the SSO procedure is not available (Logan: para. 0009, 0026, allow access to the service via the token when the federated authentication (i.e. SSO) is not available)), including providing the resource, via the local account, to allow the user to restore communication functionality of the IHS (Logan: para. 0027, 0033, restore communication functionality because the user is able to login to the computing device to access service).
As per claim 18, Logan discloses the computer-readable, non-transitory memory device of claim 15. Logan further discloses wherein the program instructions to cause the processor to determine that the SSO procedure is not available comprises program instructions to cause the processor to: attempt to send an authentication request to an identity provider associated with the SSO procedure (Logan: para. 0009, 0026).
As per claim 19, Logan discloses the computer-readable, non-transitory memory device of claim 15. Logan further discloses provide the resource to the user in response to the user being authenticated via the local account (Logan: See. Fig. 2, para. 0026, online service (i.e. resource)).
As per claim 20, Logan discloses the computer-readable, non-transitory memory device of claim 15. Logan further discloses wherein the local account includes fewer factors for login than does the SSO procedure (Logan: para. 0029, 0033, token generated and used to login to access the online service) .
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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (2012/0260322) in view of Pandya (2016/0219077).
As per claim 2, Logan discloses the method of claim 1.
Logan does not explicitly disclose wherein the check comprises: attempting to send a telnet request to a port on a server of the identity provider.
Pandya discloses attempt to send a telnet request to a port on a server of the identity provider (Pandya: para. 0100, telnet to the requested port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include attempt to send a telnet request to a port on a server of the identity provider of Pandya with Logan, the motivation is that it is an efficient way to verify network connectivity to service running on that port (Pandya: para. 0100).
As per claim 17, Logan discloses the computer-readable, non-transitory memory device of claim 15. wherein the program instructions to cause the processor to determine that the SSO procedure is available (Logan: para. 0026, federated authentication).
Logan does not explicitly disclose comprises program instructions to cause the processor to: attempt to send a telnet request to a port on a server of an identity provider.
Pandya discloses attempt to send a telnet request to a port on a server of an identity provider (Pandya: para. 0100, telnet to the requested port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include attempt to send a telnet request to a port on a server of the identity provider of Pandya with Logan, the motivation is that it is an efficient way to verify network connectivity to service running on that port (Pandya: para. 0100).
Claims 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (2012/0260322) in view of Pettit (11,461,459).
As per claim 10, Logan discloses the IHS of claim 9. Logan further discloses allow access to the resource via the local account (Logan: para. 0009, 0026, allow access to the online service via the token model).
Logan does not explicitly disclose wherein prompting the user to enter a login and password associated with the local account.
Pettit discloses wherein the prompting the user to enter a login and password associated with the local account (Pettit: col. 9, lines 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include prompting the user to enter a login and password associated with the local account of Pettit with Logan, the motivation is this is an authentication measure that insures credentials can be used (Pettit: col. 9, lines 62-67).
As per claims 12 and 16, rejected under similar basis as claim 10 above.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (2012/0260322) in view of Shi (2021/0133127).
As per claim 14, Logan discloses the IHS of claim 8. Logan does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is included within a baseboard management controller (BMC) of the IHS. However, Shi discloses wherein the processor is included within a baseboard management controller (BMC) of the IHS (Shi: para. 0155, BMC of computer device or server (IHS)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the processor is included within a baseboard management controller (BMC) of the IHS of Shi with Logan, the motivation is that enables remote management and monitoring of server’s hardware, even when the main system is powered off (Shi: para. 0155).
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 JENISE E JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Philip J Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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.
2/23/2026
/J.E.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499