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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 2/24/2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined. This office action is Final.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Canavor (2018/0255419).
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2017/0195339) in view of Jiang et al. (2016/0316369), and further in view of Canavor (2018/0255419).
As per claim 1, Brown discloses a method comprising:
receiving, over a network interface, a login request from a requesting computing device, the login request associated with a user account (Brown: para. 0098, 0113, receive login request);
detecting a location of the requesting computing device (Brown: para. 0007, 0094, first device (i.e. requesting computing device) determine proximity(i.e. location) to second device) ;
detecting a location of the receiving device (Brown: 0007, 0094, detect a location of a second device (i.e. receiving device));
comparing, using the processing unit, the location of the requesting computing device to the location of the receiving device (Brown: para. 0007, 0097, compare a location of the first device to location of the second device);
determining, based on the comparing, that the location of the requesting computing device and the location of the receiving device are different (Brown: para. 0098, determining if the comparing locations are different (i.e. no match)); and
generating an authorization response to the login request based on the determining (Brown: para. 0098, if no match is found, denying the action or request to gain access (i.e. generating an authorization response to the login request)).
Brown does not disclose generating using a processing unit, an authorization code; transmitting the authorization code to a code receiving device, the code receiving device associated with the user account.
However, analogous art of Jiang discloses generating using a processing unit, an authorization code (Jiang: para. 0071, login server generates a verification code (i.e. authorization code)); transmitting the authorization code to a code receiving device, the code receiving device associated with the user account (Jiang: sending verification code to the first terminal (i.e. code receiving device)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating using a processing unit, an authorization code; transmitting the authorization code to a code receiving device, the code receiving device associated with the user account of Jiang with Brown, the motivation is a secure method of security of an account login can be performed (Jiang: para. 0006).
Brown and Jiang do not disclose after transmitting the authorization code, detecting a location of the code receiving device.
However, analogous art of Canavor discloses after transmitting the authorization code, detecting a location of the code receiving device (Canavor: para. 0080, verification code (i.e. authorization code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include after transmitting the authorization code, detecting a location of the code receiving device of Canavor with the system/method of Brown and Jiang, the motivation is that it is a security measure that can insure verifying the identity/authenticity of the device (Canavor: para. 0015).
As per claim 7, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1.
Brown further discloses transmitting the location of the requesting computing device to the code receiving device (Brown: para. 0094, transmitting location of first device to the second device, proximity of first device to the second device).
As per claim 8, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses transmitting the authorization code, transmitting a message to the code receiving device including a request of acknowledgement of the message; and receiving an indication of acknowledgment from the code receiving device, wherein transmitting the authorization code is in response to receiving the indication (Jiang: para. 0057, 0082, transmitting a message, SMS (short message service)).
Same motivation as claim 1 above.
As per claim 10, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses wherein generating the authorization response to the login request based on the determining includes denying the login request (Jiang: para. 0098, denying login request to gain access).
Same motivation as claim 1 above.
As per claims 11 and 20, rejected under similar basis as claim 1 above.
As per claim 17, rejected under similar basis as claim 7 above.
As per claim 18, rejected under similar basis as claim 8 above.
Claims 2, 9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2017/0195339) in view of Jiang et al. (2016/0316369), in view of Canavor (2018/0255419) and further in view of Rafferty (2022/0255929).
As per claim 2, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1.
Brown, Jiang, and Canavor do not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the location of the requesting computing device is based on an internet protocol address of the login request.
However, analogous art of Rafferty discloses detecting the location of the requesting computing device is based on an internet protocol address of the login request (Rafferty: para. 0081, IP address associated with the login request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include detecting the location of the requesting computing device is based on an internet protocol address of the login request of Rafferty with Brown-Jiang-Canavor combination, the motivation is that improves security through fraud detection (Rafferty: para. 0081).
As per claim 9, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1, Brown further discloses wherein generating the authorization response to the login request based on the determining (Brown: para. 0098, if no match is found, denying the action or request to gain access (i.e. generating an authorization response to the login request)).
Brown, Jiang, and Canavor do not explicitly disclose comparing a device fingerprint of the requesting computing device to a stored device fingerprint associated with the user account.
However, analogous art of Rafferty discloses comparing a device fingerprint of the requesting computing device to a stored device fingerprint associated with the user account (Rafferty: para. 0081, determine device fingerprint matches authentication fingerprint (i.e. stored device fingerprint)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include comparing a device fingerprint of the requesting computing device to a stored device fingerprint associated with the user account of Rafferty with the combination of Brown-Jiang-Canavor, the motivation is that it provides additional network security (Rafferty: para. 0004).
As per claim 12, rejected under similar scope as claim 2 above.
As per claim 19, rejected under similar scope as claim 9 above.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2017/0195339) in view of Jiang et al. (2016/0316369), Canavor (2018/0255419) and further in view of Wu (2015/0332226).
As per claim 3, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1. Brown nor Jiang, nor Canavor disclose wherein transmitting the authorization code to the code receiving device includes transmitting the authorization code as part of a push notification to an application installed on the code receiving device.
PNG
media_image1.png
3
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, analogous art of Wu discloses transmitting the authorization code to the code receiving device includes transmitting the authorization code as part of a push notification to an application installed on the code receiving device (Wu: para. 0136, transmitting verification code as part of a push notification to an application (i.e. SMS) installed on the second client terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include transmitting the authorization code to the code receiving device includes transmitting the authorization code as part of a push notification to an application installed on the code receiving device of Wu with the combination of Brown-Jiang-Canavor, the motivation is that push notification provides an additional layer of security be requiring users to confirm their identity (Wu: para. 0136).
As per claim 5, Brown, Jiang, and Canavor disclose the method of claim 1. Jiang further disclose wherein transmitting the authorization code to the code receiving device (Jiang: para. 0136, sending verification code to the first terminal (i.e. code receiving device)).
Brown, Jiang, and Canavor do not explicitly disclose; however, Wu discloses accessing a messaging application preference associated with the user account; and transmitting the authorization code via the messaging application (Wu: para. 0136, accessing a messaging application preference (i.e. phone number) associated with the account, and transmitting verification code via SMS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include accessing a messaging application preference associated with the user account; and transmitting the authorization code via the messaging application of Wu with the combination of Brown, Jiang, and Canavor, the motivation is that it is an SMS is an efficient method of transmission of the authorization code (Wu: para. 0136).
As per claim 13, rejected under similar scope as claim 3.
As per claim 15, rejected under similar scope as claim 5.
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2017/0195339) in view of Jiang et al. (2016/0316369), in view of Canavor (2018/0255419) and in view of Wu (2015/0332226), and further in view of Dalonzo (2024/0377931).
As per claim 4, Brown, Jiang, Canavor and Wu disclose the method of claim 3. Brown, Jiang, Canavor, and Wu, do not disclose; however, in analogous art of Dalonzo discloses wherein detecting the location of the code receiving device includes: receiving the location of the code receiving device from the application installed on the code receiving device (Dalonzo: para. 0301, receive the location from the application, the location is in the messaging application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include detecting the location of the code receiving device includes: receiving the location of the code receiving device from the application installed on the code receiving device of Dalonzo with the combination of Brown, Jiang, Canavor, and Wu, the motivation is that it is an efficient method of transmitting/receiving information (Dalonzo: para. 0301).
As per claim 6, Brown, Jiang, Canavor and Wu disclose the method of claim 5.
Brown, Jiang, Canavor and Wu do not explicitly disclose; however, analogous art of Dalonzo discloses wherein detecting the location of the code receiving device includes requesting the location from the messaging application (Dalonzo: para. 0310, message for the
current location of the second electronic device, has option is selected to share the current location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detecting the location of the code receiving device includes requesting the location from the messaging application of Dalonzo with the combination of Brown, Jiang, Canavor and Wu, the motivation is that this provides flexibility to share the location from the messaging application conveniently (Dalonzo: para. 0310).
As per claim 14, rejected under similar basis as claim 4 above.
As per claim 16, rejected under similar scope as claim 6.
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 JENISE E JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Philip J Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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.
6/4/2026
/J.E.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights