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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 8/11/2025, in which, claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration per Applicant’s election of claims 1-16 for prosecution without traverse.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 3/7/2024 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 3/7/2024 is accepted.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130047247 A1 (hereinafter ‘Matsuda’) in view of US 20230085031 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ramesh’).
As regards claim 1, Matsuda (US 20130047247 A1) discloses: A method, comprising: storing an account identifier and authentication data associated with the account identifier; (Matsuda: Fig. 1, 4-8, ¶10, ¶52-¶62, i.e., storing account identifier along with authentication information)
receiving, from a client computing device, a token identifier; (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶55, i.e., generating token in response to a request from a user based on ID)
requesting the authentication data from the client computing device; (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶55, i.e., receiving authentication data from the user)
in response to receiving the authentication data, generating token enrollment data associating the token identifier with the account identifier; and (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶55, i.e., generating token in response to a request from a user based on ID and login/authentication information)
transmitting the token enrollment data for storage in association with the client…. (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶62, i.e., storing the token in association with client/user IDs)
However, Matsuda does not explicitly disclose token is stored in association with client computing device. In analogous art, Ramesh (US 20230085031 A1) teaches: computing device. (Ramesh: ¶32-¶45, i.e., during enrollment storing token in associating with the client device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuda to include storing token in associating with the client device during enrollment as taught by Ramesh with the motivation to perform secure transactions based on unique client device and the associated tokens (Ramesh: ¶32-¶45)
Claim 9 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 1 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to requesting the authentication data from the client device, determining that the token identifier is not associated with the account identifier. (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶55, i.e., generating token in response to a request from a user based on ID and login/authentication information when the token does not exist)
Claim 10 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 2 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 3, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the token enrollment data configures the client computing device to bypass collection of the authentication data for granting access to a function of the client computing device, in response to a subsequent capture of the token identifier. (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶55, ¶72-¶75, giving access to the printing function based on the token)
Claim 11 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 3 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 4, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the token enrollment data includes: storing the token identifier in association with the account identifier. (Matsuda: Figs. 1, 4-8, ¶52-¶55)
Claim 12 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 4 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 5, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein generating the token enrollment data further includes: selecting an expiry timer for the token enrollment data; determining whether the expiry timer is elapsed; and discarding the token enrollment data when the expiry timer is elapsed. (Matsuda: Figs. ¶55)
Claim 13 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 5 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 6, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing session data associating the account identifier with an identifier of the client computing device. (Matsuda: Figs. ¶54, i.e., the session information. See also, Ramesh: ¶32-¶45, i.e., during enrollment storing token in associating with the client device)
Claim 14 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 6 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Ramesh in view of US 20190200218 A1 (hereinafter ‘Redberg’).
As regards claim 7, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
However, Matsuda does not but in analogous art, Redberg (US 20190200218 A1) teaches: receiving the token identifier from a second client device; (Redberg: ¶11, i.e., the token transfer request from the second device)
transmitting the token enrollment data to the second client device; and (Redberg: ¶11, i.e., transmitting the token to the second device)
updating the session data to de-associate the account identifier from the client computing device, and associate the account identifier with the second client computing device. (Redberg: Figs 4A-4B, ¶80-¶86, i.e., deleting the token and associated account information from first device and provisioning the token on the second device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuda et al to include transferring and provisioning tokens from one client to another client device as taught by Redberg with the motivation to allow seamless usage of tokens from one device to another (Redberg: ¶10-¶11)
Claim 15 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 7 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 8, Matsuda et al combination further teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: transmitting a command to the client computing device to terminate access for the account identifier, and to discard the token enrollment data. (Redberg: Figs 4A-4B, ¶80-¶86)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuda et al to include transferring and provisioning tokens from one client to another client device as taught by Redberg with the motivation to allow seamless usage of tokens from one device to another (Redberg: ¶10-¶11)
Claim 16 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 8 above and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432