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
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments have been carefully considered but they were not found persuasive.
As per double patenting rejection applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection suggesting that eTerminal Disclaimer has been filed. However, the examiner was unable to find such document and, as result, the DP rejection is maintained.
As per the prior art rejection, there are essentially two different issues that applicant contests: Chhabra
not disclosing “digital identity network” and
not teaching an ordered sequence types.
Unfortunately, with the exception of applicant emphasizing the explicit lack of specific wording ("digital identity network," any "digital identity network verification," any "primary type of authentication," any "secondary type of authentication”, etc.) cited in the claim language and not expressly repeated in the prior art, applicant does not offer any detailed arguments why Chhabra’s teaching could not read on the claim language.
The examiner reminds applicant that the claims, although read in light of the specification, they are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation. In other words, it is not required that the prior art recites verbatim the vocabulary used in applicant’s claims as long as it addresses the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Below, the examiner offer the two examples of applicant’s arguments
Argument I
Chhabra does not teach anything related to a digital identity network or any verification carried out through such a network.
Response I
A network, e.g. LAN taught by Chhabra, enabling an authentication procedure by login based on the received user identifier meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “digital identity network verification”.
Argument II
Chhabra does not disclose a prioritization or selection of one authentication mechanism as a "primary type of authentication." Further, Chhabra does not teach an ordered sequence of authentication types in which the failure of one authentication path triggers the cessation of that attempt and the initiation of a second path that is characterized by its lack of dependency on a digital identity network
Response II
First, the claim language does not require “a second path. Furthermore, while Chhabra’s authentication process via LAN can reasonably be equated to a primary type of authentication, Chhabra expressly anticipate that this type of authentication it also offers a secondary type of authentication, that is in case the primary authentication type fails applying different authentication type such as SMS (second path) verification.
The previously cited claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-21 is maintained for the reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12 and 20 remain rejected 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chhabra (USPUB 20170171216).
As such, in para 2, 29-33, 39, 67 and 71, among others, Chhabra teaches that to gain access to a data record, an individual is required to complete a login procedure via network such as WAN/LAN or Internet, by submits a user identifier at the login page and upon failure applying different authentication such as SMS verification. User access is granted based upon successful authentication. The server may provide services such as targeted content to users of the web site.
A skilled in the art would readily appreciate that the computing devices provide functionalities by using processor to execute selected stored instructions and, as a result, Chhabra’s teaching reads on the concept as well as details of the limitations of claims 1-2, 11-12 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Chhabra (USPUB 20170171216) in view of Mumm (USPUB 20030144916).
Chhabra teaches selecting digital identity network verification as the primary type of authentication as discussed above.
Although Chhabra teaches requesting confirmation that the user has the one or more data records causing the remote computing device to display a graphical user interface that includes at least one selectable option (para 19, 32, 67, 70, 87, etc.) the prior art does not expressly teach prior to selecting digital identity network verification as the primary type of authentication, determine that a user has one or more data records associated with one or more members of a digital identity network, receive in response to a request confirmation the remote computing device.
However, such solution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Mumm (see para 59) offering the predictable benefit of security and usability.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Chhabra (USPUB 20170171216) in view of Mumm (USPUB 20030144916) and, alternatively, in further in view Top-password (“Make Windows 10/8 Show All User Accounts on Login Screen”, author unknown, found at https://www.top-password.com/blog/make-windows-10-8-show-all-user-accounts-on-login-screen/ , 11/16).
Chhabra as modified teaches the graphical user interface as discussed above.
Chhabra as modified does not teach the graphical user interface displaying a list of all members of the digital identity network.
However, a specific design of the graphical user interface would not affect patentability of Chhabra’s invention given the fact that the claims do not tie this design to any functional language. In other words, the particular elements of the graphical interface as required by the claim language, would not affect the functionality of the invention, thus would not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in the terms of patentability. At most it would have been obvious variant amounting a design choice and/or descriptive material not distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in the terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed.Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
However, for the purpose of the expedite prosecution, the examiner offers Top-password expressly displaying a list of all members of the digital identity network (see first figure, pg. 2, with the associated text). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Top-password teaching into Chhabra’s as modified invention given the benefit of usability.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Chhabra (USPUB 20170171216) in view of Raleigh (USPUB 20120167162).
Chhabra’s invention teaches determining that verification using the primary type of authentication has failed, has been discussed above.
Chhabra does not teach the outcome of the verification being a result of the server system sending to a server associated with the digital identity network the request for verified identity data of the user indicating authentication failure.
However, such solution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Raleigh (para 202) offering the predictable benefit of security.
Claim(s) 9, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Chhabra (USPUB 20170171216) in view of Tussy (USPUB 20200042685).
Chhabra’s invention teaching user verification by obtaining, via the communications module and from a remote computing device user related data, has been discussed above.
Although Chhabra teaches determining the user related data including a first image of a user and an image of an identity document that includes a second image of the user and determining successful verification by determining that the first image of the user and the second image of the user correspond to a same user, the image data analyzed using image processing techniques.
However, such solution would have been obvious variant at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Tussy (see para 337-339, for example), offering the benefit of increased security.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Chhabra (USPUB 20170171216) in view of Hockenberry (USPUB 20070174810).
Chhabra’s invention teaching verification using the secondary type of authentication, has been discussed above.
Although Chhabra teaches determining a location of the remote computing device based at least on the internet protocol address (e.g., para 47-49, 86-87), the art fails to teach comparing the determined location of the remote computing device to a known address of a user to determine successful verification.
However, in the related art, Hockenberry teaches such solution (para 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to include Hockenberry’s teaching into Chhabra given the benefit of increased security.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. 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).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights