DETAILED ACTION
Amendments submitted on February 26, 2026 for Application No. 18/464457 are presented for examination by the examiner.
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 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.
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 .
Examiner Notes
The written description paragraph 62 has defined the “computer readable storage device” to “not be construed as being transitory signals per se”.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
I) On page 7, Applicant argues that the Double Patenting rejection should be withdrawn.
The claim amendments and Terminal Disclaimer has overcome the previous Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection; therefore, it has been withdrawn. However, the amendments have raised a new Statutory Double Patenting Rejection as further shown below.
II) On pages 7-9, Applicant argues that the previous prior art rejection should be withdrawn.
The claim amendments have overcome the previous prior art rejection; therefore, it has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11212319 and claims 2, 8, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11792231. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are objected to as being allowable when overcoming the Double Patenting Rejection as shown above. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, “wherein the password management component randomly generates a new password for the at least one computing device in response to a determination that a password is employed by the at least one computing device during an authentication process for the at least one computing device". The closest prior art of record includes:
Smith (US 2017/0063815) – teaches endpoint device D1 requesting access to endpoint device D2 using KDC1 (Key Distribution Center 1). KDC1 establishes a shared session key K1 context and topic Ti is assigned to the context. Next, KDC1 notifies sentinel S1, D2, sentinel S2 and KDC2 of the topic Ti by which D1 and D2 can communicate. Smith also teaches the sentinels providing encryption between the endpoint devices.
Sundararajan (US 7278024) – teaches authenticating a user to a portable device by generating a temporary password on the portable device, transmitting the temporary password for display on a user peripheral device, and having the user input the temporary password on the portable device. The user is authenticated when the temporary password that is input matches the temporary password that is generated.
Ansari (US 2010/0217837) – teaches performing a handshake to exchange parameters to perform secure communications between devices.
Afero (WO 2017/007725) – teaches exchanging data between IoT devices to perform secure communications.
Fielder (US 6105133) – teaches generating keys and passwords for secure communications.
Hawkes (US 2013/0067552) – teaches TLS handshake protocol to establish secure connections and authentication.
Arumugam (US 2016/0269392) – teaches sharing an encrypted offline password during handshaking.
Miyazawa (US 2007/0150727) – teaches that when a handshake is successful in mode 1 that a password is encrypted and transmitted to an MFP.
However, no prior art could be found that, either individually or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the combination of limitations including “generating a new password for the at least one computing device in response to a determination that a password is employed by the at least one computing device during an authentication process for the at least one computing device" as current claimed.
Claims 4-9, 13-15, and 19-20 are objected to for the same reasons as cited above and for being dependent on a previously objected to base claim.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Farley (US 2002/0078381) – teaches a device that receives data from multiple data sources.
Kubota (US 2003/0051139) – teaches periodically updating a password.
Clausen (US 2023/0291550) – teaches periodically updating authentication credentials.
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 JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498