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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant recites a series of method steps without clarifying/distinguishing who is performing the steps. This is indefinite as it is unclear whether the SVA platform, client or validator is performing the method steps. It is recommended to the applicant to clearly define in the claim language who is performing, receiving or responding in each limitation of the method steps.
Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected under the same rationale as they do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1. (i.e., who is doing the sending, receiving?).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either alone or in combination does not expressly disclose a SVA method including all the limitations of claim 1 and further including sending a second bio-locked identity validation request toward a second validator when a first validation score of the first validator does not exceed a validation score threshold; receiving a second out-of-band communication from the second validator; and responding by the user to the second out-of-band communication from the second validator using deep biometric authentication, wherein the authentication state of the user is authenticated when the combination of the first validation score and a second validation score of the second validator exceeds the validation score threshold OR disclose a SVA method including all the limitations of claim 1 and further including signing by a SVA Client an authentication request the bio-locked identity to produce a signed authentication request, wherein the signed authentication request is signed by a private key of the SVA Client; and receiving from the SVA Platform a signed authentication response message, wherein the signed authentication response messages is signed by the SVA Platform using a private key of the SVA Platform and signed by an application using a private key of the application.
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) 1-4, 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronenberg et al (US 20250284780) in view of Biolock.
Regarding claim 1, Kronenberg discloses a method for validating an identity of a user in secure virtualization authentication (SVA) System, comprising:
sending by the user a first identity validation request toward a first validator [0059] (an out of band request may be made);
receiving a first out-of-band communication from the first validator [0046, 0075] (out of band or in band communication may be utilized);
responding by the user to the first out-of-band communication from the first validator using deep biometric authentication [0102] (a third party verification can be used that utilizes biometric information of the user)
receiving an authentication state of the user from a SVA platform [0078-0082] (samples of biometric information can be taken and it is decided if additional measures are needed).
However, Kronenberg does not expressly disclose but Biolock discloses the use of Bio-locked identity verification, see for example the use of electrical pulse signals to validate a user (How it works).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kronenberg by using bio-locked identities, for the purpose of securing user information, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Biolock, see for example [How it works]. These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
Regarding claim 2, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses the first out-of-band communication uses one of a messaging application, a voice application, a video application and in-person communication [0046].
Regarding claim 3, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses deep biometrics includes human recognition based upon personality traits and personal knowledge of the user received from the first out-of-band communication [0046].
Regarding claim 4, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses wherein a bio-locked identity is a public key- based identity [0046].
Regarding claim 6, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses determining that the first validator is in a validated state; and setting a first validator score of the first validator to a default value (reliability score) [0112].
Regarding claim 7, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses determining that the first validator is not in a validated state; and setting a first validator score of the first validator to half or less of its default value (reliability score)[0112].
Regarding claim 8, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses determining validation state of the first validator;setting a validator score based upon a default value and the validation state; andsetting a first validator timeout value (recommendation based on the score) [0112].
Regarding claim 9, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses setting a first validator score of the first validator to a default [0112]
Regarding claim 10, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses adding the first validator to a current validator list when the first validator is not on a current validator list [0111].
Regarding claim 11, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses deleting the first validator from a validator list when the first validator time value is exceeded; anddeleting the first validator score from a current validator score (alternative validation can be suggested) [0112].
Regarding claim 12, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses associating a first key pair with the user at a SVA Client [0116, 0046].
Regarding claim 13, Kronenberg and Biolock disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Kronenberg additionally discloses associating a second key pair with the user at the SVA Platform [0116, 0046].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wicker et al (US 20130101117): discloses a private overlay is provided for information networking that puts the user in charge of the user's personal information. User identity is separated from a numeric tag that points to the cell in which the user equipment can be paged. The private overlay is created by addition of a registration and certification authority such as Public Key Infrastructure and Certification Authority (PKI). The registration and certification authority provides the network and all subscribers with public encryption keys for the network and the users. Private decryption key are generated and stored locally in a suitable manner. With this addition, a private overlay to the existing cellular, wireless or utility distribution infrastructure can be established for a device that has registered with, e.g., a cellular or wireless network or with a utility distribution system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDALL DOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/KENDALL DOLLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights