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
The communication received on /2/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments are essentially directed towards the newly introduced limitations. These arguments and limitations are addressed in this communication below, see para 4.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11 and 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee (USPUB 20160342992) in view of Krishna (USPUB 20060230265), and further in view of Raghavan (USPUB 20250202889).
As per claims 1 and 4, Lee teaches receiving a request to access an account at the institution associated with the user, obtaining information identifying the user, wherein the information identifying the user is not a username or password (send a login request including username based login information (e.g., an account identification number, 132); locating the account associated with the user based on the information identifying the user, retrieving, from the institution, contact information linked to the account associated with the user and generating an authorization code associated with the request to access the account; transmitting the authorization code using the contact information linked to the account associated with the user (the transmitted login information is compared with that in the user information databased and generated authorization code is transmitted back to the user device via a message or an email, para 132).
Although allowing access to the account at the institution associated with the user upon successful authorization (approving the request to access the account in response to receiving the authorization code from the user) would have been implicit (clearly the notion of the sending the authorization code to the access requesting user aim to ensure that only authorized user is granted access), the difference between Lee and the claim language is that this action is not followed/results by/in generating a unique identifier used to establish the persistent data connection, as required by the newly amended claim language..
However, such concept would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Krishna (see Fig. 4-5 illustrating cookie with various identifiers issued as a result of successful authentication and enabling establishment of a session without the need of re-authentication) offering the benefit of efficiency.
While Lee as modified teaches receiving the authorization code from the user (the user enters the authorization code into the user interface of the financial management system, para 132), the prior art does not expressly teaches prompting the user for the authorization code. However, such concept would have been obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Raghavan (a user is prompted to enter a one-time passcode, para 33) while offering the predictable benefit of usability and security.
Lee as modified does not teach in response to approving the request to access the account, generating a unique identifier used to establish the persistent data connection.
As per claims 8, 11 and 14, 17, a skilled in the art would readily appreciate that computer functionalities are provided by executing instructions stored in a computing media using processors.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee (USPUB 20160342992) in view of Krishna (USPUB 20060230265), and Raghavan (USPUB 20250202889), and further in view of Marks (USPUB 20030033532).
Lee as modified teaches locating the account as discussed above.
Lee does not teach requesting from the user additional information related to the account associated with the user in response to determining that the number of accounts matching the information identifying the user is greater to locate the account associated with the user based on the additional information. However, the limitation merely is directed towards the concept of identifying an entry from the multiple obtained entries using the additional entry related information, the concept being well known at the time the application was filed to as evidenced by Marks (if multiple matches of users identified in the database requesting additional information, para 29) while offering the predictable benefit of accuracy.
The selection of the additional information by the entity attempting to identify a particular record (the institution) not only would have been implicit, but also there are essentially a finite number of obvious solutions of selecting the additional information (the institution making the selection being one of them) and using any of these solutions would have been merely obvious variant amounting to a design choice while offering the predictable benefit of customization.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee (USPUB 20160342992) in view of Raghavan (USPUB 20250202889) and further in view of Garlie (USPUB 20120011565) or Slaby (USPUB 20150046996).
Lee as modified teaches matching information associated with the information stored by the institution providing authorization to the end-user application, as discussed above.
Lee as modified does not teach obtaining biometric information associated with the user; comparing the biometric information to user information and in response match providing elevated authorization. However, Garile (if a higher level is access is required matching the received biometric information against the template) or Slaby (detected increased security prompts a request for biometric authentication, para 29) teach such concept. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include known solutions as taught by Garile or Slaby into Lee as modified teaching given the predictable benefit of authentication and security.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee (USPUB 20160342992) in view of Raghavan (USPUB 20050202889) and in view of Garlie (USPUB 20120011565) or Slaby (USPUB 20150046996), and in further view of Harrison (USPUB 20030154405).
Lee as modified teaches comparing the biometric information to the user information.
Lee as modified does not teach the user information being an image from one of a driver’s license or passport. Although, the examiner asserts that any particular source of user’s information would not affect the functionality of the invention, the examiner offers Harrison’s express teaching of applicant suggested solution (e.g., image of the user compared with a stored reference image from a passport record, see para 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include known source of user information as taught by Harrison into Lee as modified invention given the predicable benefit of customization and biometric authentication.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Lee (USPUB 20160342992) in view of Krishna (USPUB 20060230265) and Raghavan (USPUB 20050202889), and further in view of Wikipedia (“HTTP Persistent Connection” found at https://web.archive.org/web/20081219221214/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_persistent_connection, 12/2008).
Lee as modified teaches the use of http (web-based communication) between the end-user app and the institution, the prior art does not expressly use the term http persistent connection.
However, the use of such connection would have been an obvious variant at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Wikipedia (see the attached in PTO-892 document) offering the benefit of efficiency.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights