DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/11/2025. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 13-19 are pending.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-19 are rejected 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 (and similarly claim 13), the term “secure aggregator” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to exactly what (e.g. structurally or functionally) and the degree thereof constitutes an aggregator as “secure”. Accordingly, without further clarification, it is indefinite as to exactly what role the secure aggregator serves (e.g. an SSO proxy service, credential database that is part of the aggregation hub, etc.), making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 14-19, which claim dependency from claims 1 and 13, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian et al. (US 2022/0021516 A1, hereinafter “Kurian”) in view of Ziraknejad et al. (US 10701067 B1, hereinafter “Ziraknejad”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 13), Kurian discloses:
A system comprising:
at least one computer processor (processor, Kurian: [0023]); and
one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations comprising (memory, Kurian: [0024]):
receiving, at a secure aggregator and from an aggregation hub, a login request for an institution website (receiving log-in request for organization website, Kurian: [0063]);
receiving, at the secure aggregator from the aggregation hub, a login credential for the institution website (receiving log-in credential for organization website, Kurian: [0063]);
providing, by the secure aggregator, the login credential to the institution website (authenticating log-in credential with organization website, Kurian: [0063], [0064]);
receiving, by the secure aggregator, a login confirmation from the institution website (authenticating log-in credential with organization website, Kurian: [0063], [0064])
Kurian does not explicitly disclose:
communicating, by the secure aggregator, an indication that the secure aggregator is logged into the institution website to the aggregation hub.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ziraknejad teaches:
communicating, by the secure aggregator, an indication that the secure aggregator is logged into the institution website to the aggregation hub (communicating authentication of user log-in at web site, Ziraknejad: Col. 14 lines 63-67, Col. 15 lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kurian in view of Ziraknejad in order to further modify the system for receiving and authenticating log-in credential for organization website from the teachings of Kurian with the system for communicating authentication of user log-in at website from the teachings of Ziraknejad.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have reduced user interaction required complete authentication and greatly increased usability (Ziraknejad: Col. 1 lines 32-54).
Regarding claim 2, Kurian-Ziraknejad teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad further discloses:
receiving, from the aggregation hub, a multi-factor authentication for the institution website (receiving authentication to verify authorized credential for log-in at web site with multi-factor authentication, Ziraknejad: Col. 14 lines 63-67, Col. 15 lines 1-10, Col. 22 lines 35-67); and
providing the multi-factor authentication to the institution website (authenticating log-in at web site with multi-factor authentication, Ziraknejad: Col. 14 lines 63-67, Col. 15 lines 1-10, Col. 22 lines 35-67).
Regarding claim 5, Kurian-Ziraknejad teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad further discloses:
further comprising receiving a deletion trigger and deleting credential information from the secure aggregator (expiring credential based on maximum threshold, Ziraknejad: Col. 10 lines 48-67, Col. 11 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Kurian-Ziraknejad teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad further discloses:
wherein the deletion trigger is a designated time of day (designating maximum threshold for expiring credential, Ziraknejad: Col. 10 lines 48-67, Col. 11 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Kurian-Ziraknejad teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad further discloses:
wherein the login credential is stored in non-persistent computer memory (user profiles stored in memory, Kurian: [0024]).
Regarding claims 14 and 17-19, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2 and 5-7. Therefore, claims 14 and 17-19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and 5-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Xuan et al. (US 2019/0036923 A1: Managing Voice Applications Within a Digital Workspace), Hromi et al. (US 8943568 B1: Secure Video Conference to Conduct Financial Transactions), Jain et al. (US 2018/0114001 A1: Turing Test Decoder), and Seto et al. (US 2018/0024980 A1: Mapping Account Information to Server Authentication).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446