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
This Office Action is in response to the communication and claim amendment filed on 10/14/2025; Claims 1, 7, 10, and 11-13 have been amended; Claims 1, 11, 12, and 13 are independent claims. Claims 1-13 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 10/14/2025, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue: the combination of Felmand and Barcenas fails to disclose “prompt the user terminal to input additional information before registering the account in a case where a domain of the email address included in the registration request matches a predetermined domain which is related to a predetermined contract ” (Applicant Remarks/Arguments, pages 6-8).
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), further in view of Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720)
Regarding claim 1, Felman teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories (Felman: fig. 3, par. 0124, memory 320); and
one or more processors (Felman: fig. 3, par. 0124, memory 320), wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to:
receive a registration request including an email address and a password from a user terminal (Felman: par. 0032, requested to register a new account during a registration process. The registration process may request information from the user, such as a name, password, address, payment information, email address, alias, and/or other relevant information. Such information may be entered by a user or may be automatically populated from any number of connected systems; fig. 2, par. 0114, user device 210); and
perform a registration process that registers an account of a user on a basis of the registration request (Felman: par. 0032, requested to register a new account during a registration process. The registration process may request information from the user, such as a name, password, address, payment information, email address, alias, and/or other relevant information. Such information may be entered by a user or may be automatically populated from any number of connected systems; fig. 2, par. 0114, user device 210),
Felman does not explicitly disclose wherein the registration process includes performing processing to prompt the user terminal to input additional information before registering the account in a case where a domain of the email address included in the registration request matches a predetermined domain which is related to a predetermined contract.
However, in an analogous art, Nayudu discloses
a domain of the email address included in the registration request matches a predetermined domain. Specifically, Nayudu teaches comparing an email domain against a stored list of whitelisted institution domains. (Nayudu: par. 0187, "the set of credentials comprises an “email of the person, the method further comprises: “comparing a domain name associated with the email with a list of domain names associated with a plurality of whitelisted institutions; and verifying the institutional affiliation of the person when the domain name associated with the email matches a domain name associated with a whitelisted institution.". Note that Nayudu's "domain name associated with the email" as the claimed "domain of the email address.", Nayudu's "list of domain names associated with a plurality of whitelisted institutions" as the claimed "predetermined domain" because the list of domains exists in the system prior to the user's email being checked, and Nayudu's explicit language "when the domain name... matches a domain name" as the claimed "matches.").
Nayudu further discloses “a predetermined domain which is related to a predetermined contract” (Nayudu: par. 0024, "Persons affiliated with an approved institutions may be, for example, the employees of the institution, the directors of the institution, “the students of the institution” (e.g., when the institution is an educational institution)"; [0024], "approved institutions... may be included in one or more categories such as companies with publicly traded stocks, privately held companies, “educational institutions such as universities and colleges, governmental bodies, hospitals"; [0024], "companies may include different legal entities such as, for example and without limitations, publicly owned stock corporations, privately owned stock corporations, limited liability corporations (LLCs)"; [0187], "institutional affiliation"; Abstract, "a person has to be affiliated with an approved institution."..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nayudu with the method and system of Felman to include where a domain of the email address included in the registration request matches a predetermined domain which is related to a predetermined contract. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Nayudu teaches that "meeting strangers introduced through online websites involves a risk" and that existing online systems "do not mitigate or reduce the risks involved in meeting strangers" (Nayudu: [0003]). Nayudu further teaches that verifying a user's institutional affiliation by comparing the email domain against a list of whitelisted institutions "lowers the risk for the strangers who may want to interact with each other" and provides "assurance that each member has gone through a validation and verification process" (Nayudu: Abstract). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Nayudu's domain-based institutional verification into Feldman's registration system would reduce risk and increase user trust by ensuring that users are affiliated with approved institutions.
The combination of Feldman and Nayudu does not explicitly teach performing processing to prompt the user terminal to input additional information before registering the account.
However, in an analogous art, Xie teaches “performing processing to prompt the user terminal to input additional information before registering the account”. Specifically, Xie teaches collecting additional information (security questions, phone numbers) from users during the registration process for account recovery purposes (Xie: par. [0063], "the account management framework 400 may try various ways to help the owner of hijacked account to regain control of the account, including but not limited to, contacting the cell phone number bound with the account , asking “security questions created by the user during registration.". Note that "security questions created by the user during registration" as follows: "during registration" establishes the timing as before registration completes (i.e., "before registering the account"); "created by the user" implies the system prompted/requested the user to input this information (i.e., "performing processing to prompt"); and "security questions" and "cell phone number" constitute "additional information" beyond basic email and password credentials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xie with the method and system of Felman and Nayudu to include “performing processing to prompt the user terminal to input additional information before registering the account.” One would have been motivated to make this modification because Xie teaches that user accounts may be hijacked by attackers, and that additional information collected during registration (such as security questions and cell phone numbers) can be used to "help the owner of hijacked account to regain control of the account" (Xie: [0063]). Xie further teaches that "protecting legitimate users is a robust approach to defend against ever-changing attacks" and that "service providers can aid in the detection of malicious users by identifying legitimate users." (Xie: [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Xie's collection of additional information (security questions, phone numbers) during registration into the combined system of Feldman and Nayudu would enable legitimate users to recover their accounts if compromised, thereby improving security and protecting legitimate users.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. The combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie further discloses, wherein the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information is processing to cause the user terminal to display a message to prompt the user to input the additional information (Xie: par. [0063], "the account management framework 400 may try various ways to help the owner of hijacked account to regain control of the account, including but not limited to, contacting the cell phone number bound with the account , asking “security questions created by the user during registration.".).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is direct to an information processing system including a user terminal (Felman: fig. 2, par. 0114, user device 210) and an information processing apparatus (Felman: fig. 2, par. 0114, Server 220), the user terminal comprising: one or more first processors and one or more first memories (Felman: fig. 2, par. 0114, user device 210client device 210 may be any device capable of running an information disclosure application and/or of accessing the server (e.g., via the information disclosure application or via a web browser). Exemplary client devices may include general purpose desktop computers, laptop computers, smartphones, and/or tablet) that are configured to control the user terminal to transmit a registration request including an email address and a password to the information processing apparatus (Felman: par. 0032, requested to register a new account during a registration process. The registration process may request information from the user, such as a name, password, address, payment information, email address, alias, and/or other relevant information. Such information may be entered by a user or may be automatically populated from any number of connected systems; fig. 2, par. 0114, user device 210), and the information processing apparatus associated to claim 1, claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to an information processing method associated with the information processing apparatus claimed in claim 1; claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a program associated with the information processing apparatus claimed in claim 1; claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), and Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720), and further in view of Gomez et al. (“Gomez,” US 2012/0167225).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Felman, Nayudu, and Xie do not explicitly disclose, wherein the additional information is information to be used for user authentication in a case where the password of the account registered by the registration process is updated.
However, in an analogous art, Gomez discloses wherein the additional information is information to be used for user authentication in a case where the password of the account registered by the registration process is updated (Gomez: par. 0038, password based security in a particular context may require the user 102 to provide an email address in conjunction with a particular password and associated hint and/or secret question/answer pair. At a subsequent time, the user 102 may forget which password was selected. At such time, the provider of the password based security may require the user 102 to provide the appropriate answer to the corresponding secret question, at which time the provider may send the missing password, or an updated or reset password, to the user 102 at the associated email address.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gomez with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include wherein the additional information is information to be used for user authentication in a case where the password of the account registered by the registration process is updated. One would have been motivated to provide the system is provided with enhanced password based security. The risk level associated with the network publication relative to password security is reduced. The performance of the system is improved effectively (Gomez: abstract, par. 0006).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Felman, Nayudu, and Xie do not explicitly disclose wherein the additional information includes at least one of a second email address, a telephone number, and a secret question related to the user.
However, in an analogous art, Gomez discloses wherein the additional information includes at least one of a second email address, a telephone number, and a secret question related to the user. (Gomez: par. 0038, password based security in a particular context may require the user 102 to provide an email address in conjunction with a particular password and associated hint and/or secret question/answer pair...).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gomez with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include wherein the additional information includes at least one of a second email address, a telephone number, and a secret question related to the user. One would have been motivated to provide the system is provided with enhanced password based security. The risk level associated with the network publication relative to password security is reduced. The performance of the system is improved effectively (Gomez: abstract, par. 0006).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Felman, Nayudu, and Xie do not explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more processor and the one or more memories are further configured to update the password of the account registered by the registration process.”
However, in an analogous art, Gomez discloses “wherein the one or more processor and the one or more memories are further configured to update the password of the account registered by the registration process.” (Gomez: par. 0038, password based security in a particular context may require the user 102 to provide an email address in conjunction with a particular password and associated hint and/or secret question/answer pair. At a subsequent time, the user 102 may forget which password was selected. At such time, the provider of the password based security may require the user 102 to provide the appropriate answer to the corresponding secret question, at which time the provider may send the missing password, or an updated or reset password to the user 102 at the associated email address.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gomez with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include “wherein the one or more processor and the one or more memories are further configured to update the password of the account registered by the registration process.” One would have been motivated to provide the system is provided with enhanced password based security. The risk level associated with the network publication relative to password security is reduced. The performance of the system is improved effectively (Gomez: abstract, par. 0006).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), and Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720), and further in view of Ramana Reddy et al. (“Ramana Reddy,” US 2023/0367892)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. The combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie further teaches wherein the registration process determines whether the domain of the email address included in the registration request matches the predetermined domain in the list of domains (Nayudu: par. 0187, "the set of credentials comprises an “email of the person, the method further comprises: “comparing a domain name associated with the email with a list of domain names associated with a plurality of whitelisted institutions; and verifying the institutional affiliation of the person when the domain name associated with the email matches a domain name associated with a whitelisted institution."), but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to hold a list of domains including the predetermined domain.
However, in an analogous art, Ramana Reddy discloses “wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to hold a list of domains including the predetermined domain” (Ramana Reddy: par. 0006 The one or more embodiments also provide for a system. The system includes a processor and a data repository in communication with the processor. The data repository stores data and a request received from an external computing device. The data repository also stores a uniform resource locator (URL) specified by the request. The data repository also stores a domain of the URL. The data repository also stores an application programming interface (API) call. The data repository also stores an list of allowed domains. The system also includes an application executable by the processor. The system also includes an embedded browser embedded in the application. The embedded browser is configured to receive the request to access the data designated by the URL. The embedded browser includes an API programmed to execute the API call or pass the API call to the application. The embedded browser also includes a method interceptor programmed to intercept the API call prior to executing the API call or passing the API call to the application. The method interceptor is also programmed to compare the domain to the list of allowed domains. The method interceptor is also programmed to block, responsive to the domain failing to be a member of the list of allowed domains, the API call from executing or from passing to the application.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ramana Reddy with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include “wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to hold a list of domains including the predetermined domain.” One would have been motivated to provide the obvious benefits of centralized management and scalable domain validation (Ramana Reddy: par. 0006).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), and Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720), and further in view of Kalb et al. (“Kalb,” US 2016/0043980)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. The combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the registration process does not register the account until the one or more processors and the one or more memories receive the additional information from the user terminal after performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information.”
However, in an analogous art, Kalb discloses “wherein the registration process does not register the account until the one or more processors and the one or more memories receive the additional information from the user terminal after performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information.” (Kalb: par. 0031, Several selectable UI objects that are typically associated with web browsers and provide different web browsing functionalities are displayed in display region 310. Display region 330 includes the UI objects 320. UI objects 320 collect information from a user in order to create a user account. Some of the collected information may be required (e.g., an account will not be created until the information is provided) and other information may be optionally provided by the user and collected by the electronic message service. For instance, UI objects 320 include text boxes for receiving a user's legal name and physical address. The physical address may be required information since it is necessary to associate a user account with a physical address. Additionally, the association and account creation process may include verifying the address by either sending a generated code to the physical address, or by verifying the physical address with a database of known good addresses.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kalb with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include “wherein the registration process does not register the account until the one or more processors and the one or more memories receive the additional information from the user terminal after performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information.” One would have been motivated to provide a mechanism for verifying the authenticity of a user attempting to create an account by verifying the authenticity of a physical address associated with a user (Klab: par. 0006).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), and Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720), and further in view of Kayser, III et al. (“Kayser,” US 2023/0022684)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. The combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information but does not explicitly disclose “ wherein, in a case where the one or more processors and the one or more memories receive an instruction from the user terminal, the registration process registers the account even if the one or more processors and the one or more memories do not receive the additional information from the user terminal after performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information.”
However, in an analogous art, Kayser discloses wherein, in a case where the one or more processors and the one or more memories receive an instruction from the user terminal, the registration process registers the account even if the one or more processors and the one or more memories do not receive the additional information from the user terminal (Kayser: par. 0136, At workflow 810 the signup page is illustrated in FIG. 8B. The user can be prompted to sign up using various other platforms with button 812, or the user can operate a button 814 to create a new account. As illustrated in FIG. 8C, at workflow 816, the user can enter their name, phone number and email address in data fields 818. Once this information is entered, the interface will activate a button 820 to advance to the next page.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kayser with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include “ wherein, in a case where the one or more processors and the one or more memories receive an instruction from the user terminal, the registration process registers the account even if the one or more processors and the one or more memories do not receive the additional information from the user terminal after performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information.” One would have been motivated to provide simple fantasy based contests effectively, and allows a user to play the fantasy game in a rapid and easy manner such that a user can rapidly and easily understand rules of the game, thus increasing success of new players and encouraging robust recruitment into the game efficiently (Kayser: pars. 0007-0008, 0010-0012).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), and Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720), and Lervik et al. (“Kervik,” US 2019/0068747), and further in view Graylin et al. (“Graylin,” US 2018/0359349).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Felman, Nayudu, and Xie teaches do not explicit disclose “wherein, in a case where the additional information is included in the registration request, the registration process does not include performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information even if the domain of the email address included in the registration request matches the predetermined domain.”
However, in an analogous art, Lervik discloses where the additional information is included in the registration request (Lervik: par. 0043, the registration request may comprise additional information, including, but not limited to, a persona type and/or one or more expected attribute types (e.g., indicating that an inferred user profile should comprise a username, and email address, and a phone number, etc.). In another example, a persona type may be determined by the unified profile service based on one or more personas and profiles already stored by the unified profile service. For example, the unified profile service may evaluate the service for which the request was received and determine that the service is similar to another service already associated with a particular persona type. As a result, the persona type for the similar service may be used as a persona type for the request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lervik with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, and Xie to include “the additional information is included in the registration request.” One would have been motivated to provide registration systems can receive supplemental information beyond basic user identification in the initial request. This approach provides the benefit of streamlined profile creation and eliminates the need for subsequent data collection steps, improving both system efficiency and user experience (Lervik: par. 0043).
The combination of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, and Lervik teaches “the domain of the email address included in the registration request matches the predetermined domain” and where the additional information is included in the registration request but does not explicitly disclose
“the registration process does not include performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information even if the domain of the email address included in the registration request matches the predetermined domain.”
However, in an analogous art, Graylin discloses if system has sufficient data then skip prompts because prompts are unnecessary (Graylin: par. 0047, As shown in step 445, if the system determines that the recipient is a registered user (a positive user status), the package including the voice and text data is sent over the network to the recipient. The recipient device, upon receiving the voicetext may process the package in a number of ways depending on the contextual state of the device and present use by the recipient. If the recipient device is in a hands-free mode, or the recipient is connected to a headset or other audio-capable peripheral, the recipient's device may playback the audio file containing the sender's voice, introduced by an informational statement or prompt by the system. For example, if the recipient is connected to a headset and a voicetext message is received, the recipient device may issue a contextual prompt saying “New Message from Sally. Would you like to hear it?.” The recipient device may also or instead skip the prompt and directly initiate playback of the senders audio portion of the voicetext. According to one aspect, the system may recognize the context of multiple messages exchanged between users in a short period of time. In such a scenario, the system may simply play back the synchronous messages without the prompts, thereby reducing the lag and response times associated with inter-device communications. In this situation the system may skip additional prompts on the sender's device if the system determines there is sufficient data to send a message. If a series of voicetexts has been processed between two users in rapid succession, the system may determine that, based on the context of incoming and outgoing messages, certain prompts are unnecessary and the system can determine any missing information given the context. For example, the system may determine that it is unnecessary to prompt the user for an identification of an intended recipient when the sender has been messaging the same recipient a number of times in a short time period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Graylin with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, and Lervik to include wherein, in a case where the additional information is included in the registration request, the registration process does not include performing the processing to prompt the user terminal to input the additional information even if the domain of the email address included in the registration request matches the predetermined domain. One would have been motivated to provide systems which can skips prompts when sufficient data is available in the messaging context. Therefore, it would reduce lag and eliminate unnecessary interactions (Graylin: par. 0047).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felman (“Felman,” US 2022/0132214), in view of Nayudu et al. (“Nayudu,” US 2021/0110500), and Xi et al. (“Xie,” US 2012/0246720), and Gomez et al. (“Gomez,” US 2012/0167225), and Mason (“Mason,” US 2018/0103050), and Dudley (“Dudley,” US 2018/0184289), and further in view of Ziliani et al. (“Ziliani,” US 2022/0364835)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, and Gomez teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9. The combination of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, and Gomez discloses wherein the registration process registers the additional information in association with the account (Felman: par. 0032, requested to register a new account during a registration process. The registration process may request information from the user, such as a name, password, address, payment information, email address, alias, and/or other relevant information. Such information may be entered by a user or may be automatically populated from any number of connected systems; fig. 2, par. 0114, user device 210; Nayudu: par. 0187)
Felman, Nayudu, Xie, and Gomez do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to: authenticate the user using the additional information associated with the account in a case where the email address included in the registration request used by the registration process is invalid.
However, in an analogous art, Mason discloses backup authentication or second authentication
authenticate the user using the additional information associated with the account (Mason: par. 0084. In some embodiments, the verifier 305 may also use previously stored user information for a backup or secondary authentication procedure. The previously stored user information may information associated with the user system 12, which was obtained during an initial registration process, included in a user profile associated with the user system 12, and/or the like.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mason with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, and Gomez to include “authenticate the user using the additional information associated with the account.” One would have been motivated to use previously stored backup authentication, information is obtained during initial registration, secondary authentication when needed (Mason: par. 0084).
The combination of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, Gomez, and Mason discloses “registering the account in a case where a domain of the email address included in the registration request matches a predetermined domain” and “authenticate the user using the additional information associated with the account but does explicitly disclose
“in a case where the email address included in the registration request used by the registration process is invalid”
However, in an analogous art, Dudley discloses conditional switching to backup authentication when the primary authentication method becomes unavailable (Duley: par. 0033, to provide additional or alternative authentication techniques, such as in scenarios in which the primary authentication techniques described herein are partially or completely unavailable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dudley with the method and system of Felman, Nayudu, Xie, Gomez, and Mason to include “authenticate the user using the additional information associated with the account in a case where the email address included in the registration request used by the registration process is invalid. One would understand that when a user’s email address become invalid (making email-based authentication unavailable), the system should use the previously stored authentication information for backup authentication. One would have been motivated to provide a backup/alternative authentication scenarios to solve primary authentication method failure problems (Dudley; par 0033).
The combination of Felman, Barcenas, Gomez, Mason, and Dudley teaches “registering the account in a case where a domain of the email address included in the registration request matches a predetermined domain” but does not explicitly disclose
authenticate the user by transmitting an email to the email address in a case where the email address included in the registration requested used by the registration process is not invalid.
However, in an analogous art, Ziliani discloses authenticate the user by transmitting an email to the email address in a case where the email address included in the registration requested used by the registration process is not invalid (Ziliani: par. 0052, The username can be a valid email address or a mobile phone number. The validity of the email address or phone number is verified by sending a link which the user is to confirm to show actual access to the email address or phone number used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ziliani with the method and system of Felman, Barcenas, Gomez, Mason, and Dudley to include “authenticate the user by transmitting an email to the email address in a case where the email address included in the registration requested used by the registration process is not invalid.” One would have been motivated to provide the advantage of real-time email accessibility verification, ensuring the authentication system only relies on email address that are currently functional and accessible to legitimate user, thereby avoiding authenticating failure due to inactive or inaccessible email accounts (Ziliani: par. 0052).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANH LE whose telephone number is (571)270-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 6:00AM to 3:30PM other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5002. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Canh Le/
Examiner, Art Unit 2439
December 13th, 2025
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439