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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are amended. No claim(s) are cancelled or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection of claim(s) 13 have been considered. The objection of claim(s) 13 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim.
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s remarks regarding double patenting rejection have been acknowledged. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Therefore, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-20 of copending Application 18/482,687.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Copending Application (18/482,687)
Instant Application (18/482,692)
Claim 1. A method for establishing shared trust with an agent user for a current communication, the method comprising:
providing, by communications hardware and via a mobile application, a logon request for a client user account associated with a client user to a system device;
in an instance in which the logon request was successfully authenticated, determining, by authentication circuitry and using the mobile application, an authentication sequence code;
causing, by the communications hardware, the authentication sequence code to be provided to an agent device associated with the agent user; and
receiving, by the communications hardware, a shared trust decision message from the system device, wherein the shared trust decision message is indicative of a verification status for the current communication.
Claim 1. A method for a user to verify authenticity of a first communication, the method comprising:
receiving, by communications hardware of a user device, a voice communication via the first communication channel;
generating, by authentication circuitry, based on the voice communication, and using a mobile application, a candidate authentication sequence code message;
providing, by the communications hardware and via the mobile application, the candidate authentication sequence code message to a system device via an authenticated second communication channel; and
in response to providing the candidate authentication sequence code message to the system device, receiving, by the communications hardware and via the authenticated second communication channel, a shared trust decision message, wherein the shared trust decision message is indicative of a verification status of the first communication channel.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mistry et al., (US 2016/0219435 A1) in view of Yarabolu et al., (US 2020/0162450 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 19, Mistry discloses A method for a user to verify authenticity of a first communication ([0017], “authenticate a user into a conference call”), the method comprising:
receiving, by communications hardware of a user device, a voice communication via the first communication channel ([0016], “an application that runs on a smart phone”, [0024], “the user calls a defined number for the conference call”);
generating, by authentication circuitry, based on the voice communication, and using a mobile application, a candidate authentication sequence code message ([0016], “an application that runs on a smart phone”, [0024], “the user calls a defined number for the conference call”, [0029], “The process sends the one-time conference passcode to the user”);
providing, by the communications hardware and via the mobile application, the candidate authentication sequence code message to a system device ([0016], “an application that runs on a smart phone”, [0024], “The user, via an IVR system, enters the one-time conference passcode”); and
in response to providing the candidate authentication sequence code message to the system device, receiving, by the communications hardware, a shared trust decision message, wherein the shared trust decision message is indicative of a verification status of the first communication channel ([0024], “The user, via an IVR system, enters the one-time conference passcode and the participant code (via Dual Tone Multi-Frequency DTMF signaling) when prompted by the IVR system. The conference authentication module 122 verifies that the one-time conference passcode for the user is valid. The conference authentication module 122 also verifies that the participant code is valid”, [0005], “The one-time conference passcode and the participant code are verified. In response to verifying the one-time conference passcode and the participant code, the user is allowed to join the conference call”).
Mistry does not explicitly teach but Yarabolu teaches
providing or receiving message via the authenticated second communication channel ([0046], “the user code may be transmitted to the user computing system 101 via e-mail, SMS, authenticator application, voice call, or the like (e.g., the second channel)”),
Mistry and Yarabolu are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. 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 Yarabolu with the disclosure of Mistry. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a dual factor authorization system for authentication of a user (Yarabolu, [0005]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
receiving, by the communications hardware, a prompt to provide the candidate authentication sequence code message from the system device, wherein (i) the received prompt is indicative of a recipient device assignment, (ii) the received prompt is indicative to provide the candidate authentication sequence code to the system device, and (iii) the received prompt further includes device information for the system device (Mistry, [0024], “For example, the user calls a defined number for the conference call. The user, via an IVR system, enters the one-time conference passcode and the participant code (via Dual Tone Multi-Frequency DTMF signaling) when prompted by the IVR system. The conference authentication module 122 verifies that the one-time conference passcode for the user is valid. The conference authentication module 122 also verifies that the participant code is valid”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
prompting, by visualization circuitry, a user to input an input comprising the candidate authentication sequence code within the mobile application (Mistry, [0024], “The user, via an IVR system, enters the one-time conference passcode”); and
in response to the user inputting the candidate authentication sequence code into the mobile application, determining, by the authentication circuitry, the candidate authentication sequence code based on the input, wherein the candidate authentication sequence code message comprises the candidate authentication sequence code (Mistry, [0024], “The conference authentication module 122 verifies that the one-time conference passcode for the user is valid”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
receiving, by the communications hardware and via the mobile application, an authentication sequence code from an agent device associated with an agent user (Mistry, [0029], “The process sends the one-time conference passcode to the user”), and
determining, by the authentication circuitry, the candidate authentication sequence code based on the received authentication sequence code, wherein the candidate authentication sequence code message comprises the candidate authentication sequence code (Mistry, [0024], “The conference authentication module 122 verifies that the one-time conference passcode for the user is valid”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
automatically generating, by the user device, an authentication sequence code from the voice communication (Mistry, [0029], “The process sends the one-time conference passcode to the user”); and
prompting, by visualization circuitry, a client user to verify or reject the candidate authentication sequence code within the mobile application, wherein the candidate authentication sequence code message comprises an indication of whether the client user verified the candidate authentication sequence code (Mistry, [0035], “when the user provides the participant code in step 300, the system could verify that the user is authorized to use a specific participant code and reject the user if an unauthorized participant code is provided”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
receiving, by the communications hardware and via the mobile application, client user authorization to provide a candidate authorization sequence code in the candidate authentication sequence code message; and providing, by the communications hardware, the candidate authentication sequence code message to the system device in response to receiving the client user authorization (Mistry, [0005], “To provide more secure access to a conference call, a request is received from a user to retrieve a one-time conference passcode; the request includes a personal verification code (as user authorization). In one embodiment, the personal verification code is a digital certificate. The personal verification code is validated. In response to the personal verification code being validated, the user is sent the one-time conference passcode”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
displaying, by visualization circuitry, agent information within the mobile application, wherein the agent information comprises at least one of an agent name, department, phone number, email, branch location, picture, or live video (Mistry, Abstract, “the user is allowed to join the conference call. The user's name is then displayed in a list of conference participants”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu teaches
wherein the authentication sequence code is a one-time password (Mistry, [0005], “a one-time conference passcode”).
Claims 7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mistry et al., (US 2016/0219435 A1) in view of Yarabolu et al., (US 2020/0162450 A1) further in view of Dinh Cuong Duong (US 2022/0247836 A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 16 and 20, the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu does not explicitly teach but Duong teaches
displaying, by visualization circuitry, the verification status of the first communication channel within the mobile application ([0074], “At step 470 a confirmation message is sent by the web server 15 to the mobile application 12 and displayed at step 475 for informing the user 11 that he/she is successfully registered”).
Mistry, Yarabolu and Duong are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. 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 Duong with the combined teaching of Mistry and Yarabolu. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a high level of information security and data privacy (Duong, [0001]).
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 CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497