DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 08/03/26. Claims 1-15, 17, 19 and 20 are still pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
The amendments and/or arguments have been considered and are persuasive; thus, the previous claim objection(s) have been withdrawn.
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) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badhwar et al. (2021/0194883) in view of Subramanian et al. (2018/0075231).
Claim 1: Badhwar et al. discloses a method for multi-application registration and verification, the method comprising:
identifying a gateway application programming interface (API) on a client device, wherein the gateway API is configured to communicate with a plurality of auxiliary APIs associated with the client device(clients can connect to an enterprise scale service provider which allows for a single sign on connection to all web applications in the group) [page 2, paragraph 0021];
registering the client device via the gateway API(registered users) [pages 2-3, paragraph 0025];
verifying registration of the client device(registration status) [page 6, paragraph 0071], wherein verifying registration further comprises verifying a user’s identity via biometric authentication [page 8, paragraphs 0108-0111];
creating at least one verifier configured to communicate between the plurality of auxiliary APIs associated with the client device(initiate step-up authentication security request) [page 5, paragraph 0058]; and
accessing the plurality of auxiliary APIs associated with the client device via the at least one verifier(determine if user has satisfied security requests) [page 3, paragraphs 0034-0035 | page 5, paragraphs 0059-0060];
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one verifier is selected based on a user’s consent for multi-app auto-confirmation.
However, Subramanian et al. discloses a similar invention [page 1, paragraph 0004] and further discloses wherein the at least one verifier is selected based on a user's consent for multi-app auto-confirmation(login preferences for SSO microservice) [page 25, paragraphs 0370-0372].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Badhwar et al. with the additional features of Subramanian et al., in order to provide secure access to cloud-based and/or remotely located applications regardless of the device type and/or user type accessing the applications, as suggested by Subramanian et al. [page 1, paragraph 0003].
Claim 2: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 1, and Badhwar et al. further discloses wherein the auxiliary APIs associated with the client device comprise a social media platform [page 9, paragraph 0120].
Claim 3: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 1, and Badhwar et al. further discloses wherein verifying registration comprises: identifying at least one verifier associated with a phone number associated with the client device; and transmitting a one-time password code to the client device(sending OTP to user via SMS or phone call) [page 5, paragraph 0058 | page 8, paragraph 0109].
Claim 4: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 3, and Badhwar et al. further discloses wherein the one-time password (OTP) code comprises a short message service message (SMS) [page 8, paragraph 0109].
Claim 5: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 1, and Badhwar et al. further discloses further comprising determining a preexisting verifier for the client device [page 8, paragraphs 0107-0109].
Claim 8: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 1, and Badhwar et al. further discloses wherein the at least one verifier comprises a plurality of verifiers, each verifier configured to communicate with a different API(different actions would have different step-up authentication methods depending on the determined risk) [pages 4-5, paragraphs 0053-0055 & 0058 & 0060].
Claim 9: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 1, and Badhwar et al. further discloses wherein the at least one verifier comprises a primary verifier and a secondary verifier, wherein the primary verifier is configured to communicate with a first social media platform and the secondary verifier is configured to communicate with a second social media platform(different actions on different sites having different risk assessments and require different authenticators) [pages 4-5, paragraphs 0053-0055 & 0058 & 0060 | page 9, paragraph 0120].
Claim 10: Badhwar et al. and Subramanian et al. disclose the method of claim 1, and Badhwar et al. further discloses wherein the at least one verifier is associated with a specific user account [page 8, paragraph 0108].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
