DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 05/04/2026. Claims 1 and 13 are amended with claims 8-12 previously canceled. Claims 7 and 19 are canceled. Claims 1-6 and 13-18 remain pending in the application.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 2-4), filed on 05/04/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the newly found reference being used in the current rejection.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 11/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, “communication” should be -- communicating -- (line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 13, 14, 17, and 18 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”) further in view of Potlapally et al. (US 2015/0244716 A1, hereinafter “Potlapally”).
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:
wherein the secure aggregator comprises a computing device configured to store login credentials only in non-persistent memory and delete the credentials upon completion of login or loss of power;
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).
Kurian-Ziraknejad does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the secure aggregator comprises a computing device configured to store login credentials only in non-persistent memory and delete the credentials upon completion of login or loss of power.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Potlapally teaches:
wherein the secure aggregator comprises a computing device configured to store login credentials only in non-persistent memory and delete the credentials upon completion of login or loss of power (deleting credentials from non-persistent memory at instance termination, Potlapally: [0021], [0041], [0048]).
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-Ziraknejad in view of Potlapally in order to further modify the system for authenticating log-in credential for organization website from the combined teachings of Kurian-Ziraknejad with the system for temporarily storing login credentials from the teachings of Potlapally.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have reduced possibility of credentials being obtained by intruder or malicious entity (Potlapally: [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Kurian-Ziraknejad-Potlapally teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad-Potlapally 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-Potlapally teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad-Potlapally 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-Potlapally teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Kurian-Ziraknejad-Potlapally 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 claims 14, 17, and 18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2, 5, and 6. Therefore, claims 14, 17, and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2, 5, and 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 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.
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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Lupien et al. (US 2017/0093828 A1: System and Method for Detecting Whether Automatic Login to a Website Has Succeeded).
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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
Prosecution Insights