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
Currently pending claims are 1 – 9, 11 & 23 (Claims 10 & 12 – 22: Cancelled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to instant claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment – please see the following section for the detail of rationale to make the corresponding prior-art(s) rejections as set forth below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 exclaimed 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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (U.S. Patent 2013/0045713), in view of Guo et al. (KR 2019-0099076 A).
As per claim 1, Foster teaches a system, comprising:
a microprocessor (Foster: FIG. 1 & Para [0016]); and
a computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions that, when executed by the microprocessor, cause the microprocessor to (Foster: see above):
receive a first authentication credential of a first user from a first communication device (Foster: see above & Para [0018] Line 9 – 12: using a username / password authentication mechanism);
validate the first authentication credential (Foster: see above & Para [0018] Line 9 – 12);
in response to validating the first authentication credential, send a first authentication code to the first communication device of the first user (Foster: see above & Para [0027] Line 6 – 7 and Para [0021]: after a user enters a correct username / password, the system can send a first passkey (i.e. a first authentication code) to the user), and send a second authentication code (Foster: see above & Para [0033] Line 5 – 8 and Para [0032] Line 1 – 2: the system can continue transmitting another passkey to compare this (new) passkey against the passkey sent from a second device, wherein each passkey of a plurality of passkeys can be expired after a certain threshold period of time);
receive the first authentication code from the first communication device of the first user (Foster: see above & Para [0022] Line 5 – 7);
receive the second authentication code (Foster: see above & Para [0033]: for comparison (see below));
validate the first authentication code and the second authentication code (Foster: see above & Para [0033] / Para [0023] Line 1 – 2: such that after comparing “these” passkeys and if the comparison is successful, the system can send an authorization code to a remote server to enable the user to access the system); and
in response validating the first authentication code and the second authentication code, grant access, to the first user, to a resource (Foster: see above & Para [0023] Line 1 – 2).
However, Foster does not disclose expressly approving a transaction of the first user over a specified amount by a second user.
Guo (& Foster) teach wherein the second authentication code is sent to a second communication device of a second user and wherein the second user can do at least one of approve a transaction that is over a number of transactions in a time period and approve a transaction of the first user over a specified amount (Foster: see above) ||
(Guo: Page 13 / 3th – 4th Para & Page 9 / 1st Para: under a special financial transaction situation, providing a comprehensive security mechanism by using an electronic bill management system such that if an amount of an asset is exceeding the amount of the transaction asset that a 1st user intends to trade, the bill management system would send a second request message (i.e. equivalent to a second authentication code) to a 2nd user that is different from the 1st user to confirm the transaction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of approving a transaction of the first user over a specified amount by a second user because Guo teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely provide a comprehensive security mechanism under a special financial transaction situation, by using an electronic bill management system such that if an amount of an asset is exceeding the amount of the transaction asset that a 1st user intends to trade, the bill management system would send a second request message (i.e. equivalent to a second authentication code) to a 2nd user that is different from the 1st user to confirm the transaction (see above) within the Foster’s system of authenticating an access request sent from a first user and in response to validating the first authentication credential, sending a first and a second authentication code to the first communication device of the first user so as to, based on the response from the first user, determining whether to grant the access request (see above).
As per claim 2, Foster as modified teaches wherein the second authentication code is sent to a second communication device of a second user, wherein the second authentication code is received from the second communication device of the second user, and wherein the second authentication code is sent to the second communication device before the first authentication code is received from the first communication device (Foster: see above & Para [0033] Line 3 – 5 / Para [0032]: to avoid the timing conflict, a subsequent passkey can be sent before the response of a previous passkey being received from the user device) || (Guo: see above).
As per claim 3, Foster as modified teaches wherein the second authentication code is sent to a second communication device of a second user, wherein the second authentication code is received from the second communication device of the second user, and wherein the second authentication code is sent to the second communication device after receiving the first authentication code from the first communication device (Foster: see above & Para [0032] Last sentence: (e.g.) the system sends a 2nd passkey after receiving the response of the first passkey responded from the user and detecting that the user inputs of the 1st passkey is a wrong passkey) || (Guo: see above).
As per claim 4 – 5, Foster as modified teaches wherein the second authentication code is sent to a second communication device of a second user and wherein the second authentication code is received from the first communication device of the first user || (Guo: see above) || (Foster: see above:
(a) please note the first and the second entities appears on the claim are merely based on the timing sequence which could be just a same entity (i.e. as referred to a different timing appearance), and
(b) assuming the 2nd user / device is a different user / device from the 1st user / device – please refer to US 10,594,697 (by Copsey) regarding collaborative authentication, wherein a challenge (i.e. a 2nd authentication code) is sent to a 2nd user / device and the 1st user / device is required to respond to the system with the challenge (i.e. a 2nd authentication code) (Copsey: Abstract / Line 10 – 13)).
As per claim 6, Foster as modified teaches wherein the second communication device comprises a plurality of communication devices of a plurality of users and wherein the second authentication code is received from one of the plurality of communication devices of the plurality of users (Foster: see above & FIG. 1 / E-122 & E-130: a computer (work station) and a mobile phone constitute a plurality of communication devices) || (Guo: see above).
Claims 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (U.S. Patent 2013/0045713), in view of Copsey et al. (U.S. Patent 2003/0187798), and in view of Guo et al. (KR 2019-0099076 A).
As per claim 9, the claim limitations are met as the same reasons as that set forth in the paragraph above regarding to claim 1 with the exception of the feature(s) of:
in response to validating the first authentication code received from the first communication device, send an authentication request to a second communication device of a second user requesting the second user to authenticate (Foster: see above) || (Copsey: Abstract, FIG. 3 / E-360 & Col. 4 Line 40 – 50: to enhance the security for authentication, the security system further provides a collaborative authentication mechanism, wherein the security system sends an authentication request to a collaborative authenticator (i.e. a different second user) and the second user replies with an authentication response including a password credential for authentication so as to allow (i.e. approve) the access to the system by the requesting user (i.e. the first user));
receive a second authentication credential from the second user (Foster: see above) || (Copsey: see above);
validate the second authentication credential from the second user (Foster: see above) || (Copsey: see above); and
in response to validating the authentication credential from the second user, granting access, to the first user, to a resource (Foster: see above) || (Copsey: see above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of sending an authentication request to a second communication device of a second user requesting the second user to authenticate because Copsey teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely provide a comprehensive security mechanism for authentication, the security system further provides a collaborative authentication mechanism, wherein the security system sends an authentication request to a collaborative authenticator (i.e. a different second user) and the second user replies with an authentication response including a password credential for authentication so as to allow (i.e. approve) the access to the system by the requesting user (i.e. the first user) (see above) within the Foster’s system of authenticating an access request sent from a first user and in response to validating the first authentication credential, sending a first and a second authentication code to the first communication device of the first user so as to, based on the response from the first user, determining whether to grant the access request (see above).
However, Foster does not disclose expressly approving a transaction of the first user over a specified amount by a second user.
Guo (& Foster) teach wherein the second authentication code is sent to a second communication device of a second user and wherein the second user can do at least one of approve a transaction that is over a number of transactions in a time period and approve a transaction of the first user over a specified amount (Foster: see above) ||
(Guo: Page 13 / 3th – 4th Para & Page 9 / 1st Para: providing a comprehensive security mechanism by using an electronic bill management system such that if an amount of an asset is exceeding the amount of the transaction asset that a 1st user intends to trade, the bill management system would send a second request message (i.e. equivalent to a second authentication code) to a 2nd user that is different from the 1st user to confirm the transaction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of approving a transaction of the first user over a specified amount by a second user because Guo teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely provide a comprehensive security mechanism by using an electronic bill management system such that if an amount of an asset is exceeding the amount of the transaction asset that a 1st user intends to trade, the bill management system would send a second request message (i.e. equivalent to a second authentication code) to a 2nd user that is different from the 1st user to confirm the transaction (see above) within the Foster’s system of authenticating an access request sent from a first user and in response to validating the first authentication credential, sending a first and a second authentication code to the first communication device of the first user so as to, based on the response from the first user, determining whether to grant the access request (see above).
As per claim 11, Foster as modified teaches to send a second authentication code to the second communication device; receive the second authentication code from the second communication device; validate the second authentication code; and in response to validating the second authentication code, approve the transaction of the first user, or approve the transaction of the first user over the specified amount (Foster / Guo: see above) || (Copsey: see above & Col. 18 Line 11 – 13 / Line 41 – 48: a second user (i.e. an collaborative authenticator) is provided with a challenge (e.g. random code) and based on the response from the second user to allow the requested access from the 1st user).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 & 23 are allowed.
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 LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2573 – 2026 ---------------------------------------------------