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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/24/2024, 02/24/2025, 02/27/2025, & 12/08/2025 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the examiner.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 26-28, and 38 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1, 10-11, and 16-17 of copending U.S. Application 18/673,660 (reference application), starting with the Instant application claims followed by the Reference application claims as follows: claim 1 and claim 1; claim 26 and claim 16; claim 27 and claim 10; claim 28 and claim 11; and claim 38 and claim 17. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/673,635
Reference U.S. Application 18/673,660
1. A system for authentication, comprising:
a validation system;
an agent configured to communicate a first credential indicating an identification to the validation system and communicate a second credential indicating the identification to a verification service, wherein the validation system includes:
a database configured to store authorized user data; and
a portal configured to provide selection of the verification service from a plurality of verification services, wherein the validation system is configured to compare the first credential to the authorized user data, determine a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data, receive a verification of the second credential from the verification service, and modify the confidence level based on the verification.
26. The system of claim 1, wherein the verification service is a third-party service separate from the validation system.
27. The system of claim 1, wherein the validation system provides certificate transparency.
28. The system of claim 1, wherein the validation system employs a claimant model for verifying signatures of the agent.
38. A system for identity authentication on a communication platform, comprising:
a database configured to store authorized user data;
a first node that creates an identification and is configured to communicate the identification;
at least one second node configured to:
receive the identification;
compare the identification to the authorized user data;
determine a confidence level for the first node; and
communicate a signal indicating the confidence level; and
a user interface configured to present an indication of the confidence level in response to the signal.
1. A system for authentication, comprising:
a validation system;
an agent configured to communicate a first credential indicating an identification to the validation system and communicate a second credential indicating the identification to a verification service, wherein the validation system includes:
a database configured to store authorized user data; and
a portal configured to provide selection of the verification service from a plurality of verification services, wherein the validation system is configured to compare the first credential to the authorized user data, determine a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data, receive a verification of the second credential from the verification service, and modify the confidence level based on the verification.
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the verification service is a third-party service separate from the validation system.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the validation system provides certificate transparency.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the validation system employs a claimant model for verifying signatures of the agent.
17. A system for identity authentication on a communication platform, comprising:
a database configured to store authorized user data;
a first node that creates an identification and is configured to communicate the identification;
at least one second node configured to:
receive the identification;
compare the identification to the authorized user data;
determine a confidence level for the first node; and
communicate a signal indicating the confidence level; and
a user interface configured to present an indication of the confidence level in response to the signal.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7, 11, 29, and 36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 30-31 of copending Application No. 18/673,660 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 7, 11, 29, and 36 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1 and 30-31 of copending Application No. 18/673,660, starting with the Instant application claims followed by the corresponding Reference application claims as follows: claim 7 and claim 31; claim 11 and claim 30; claim 29 and claim 1; and claim 36 and claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/673,635
Reference U.S. Application 18/673,660
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the verification service includes endpoint service and detection.
11. The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a user device on which the agent runs, wherein the first credential includes data representative of an identity of the user device, the data including at least one of location information, voice information, and video information.
Examiner notes: “first credential” is the “identification” as indicated in claim 1 of are the same as indicated in claim 1 of 18673660.
29. The method for authentication, comprising:
selecting, via a portal of a validation system, a verification service from a plurality of verification services separate from the validation system;
receiving, at the validation system, a first credential from an agent indicating an identification;
comparing the first credential to authorized user data stored in an authorized user database;
determining a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data;
communicating to the verification service a second credential from the agent indicating the identification;
receiving, via the verification service, verification of the second credential;
modifying the confidence level based on the verification. (emphasis added)
36. A method for authentication, comprising:
selecting a verification service from a plurality of verification services;
receiving, at a validation system, a first credential from an agent indicating an identification;
comparing the first credential to authorized user data;
determining a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data;
communicating to the verification service a second credential indicating the identification;
receiving a verification of the second credential from the verification service;
modifying the confidence level based on the validation. (emphasis added)
31. The system of claim 18, further comprising:
a third-party verification service in communication with the first node and including endpoint service and detection for detecting aberrant software running on the first node.
30. The system of claim 18, wherein the identification includes at least one of voice information provided via at least one of VOIP and PSTN, textual confirmation via instant messaging, video information, and location information.
1. A system for authentication, comprising:
a validation system;
an agent configured to communicate a first credential indicating an identification to the validation system and communicate a second credential indicating the identification to a verification service, wherein the validation system includes:
a database configured to store authorized user data; and
a portal configured to provide selection of the verification service from a plurality of verification services, wherein the validation system is configured to compare the first credential to the authorized user data, determine a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data, receive a verification of the second credential from the verification service, and modify the confidence level based on the verification. (emphasis added)
1. A system for authentication, comprising:
a validation system;
an agent configured to communicate a first credential indicating an identification to the validation system and communicate a second credential indicating the identification to a verification service, wherein the validation system includes:
a database configured to store authorized user data; and
a portal configured to provide selection of the verification service from a plurality of verification services, wherein the validation system is configured to compare the first credential to the authorized user data, determine a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data, receive a verification of the second credential from the verification service, and modify the confidence level based on the verification. (emphasis added)
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “VOIP” and “PSTN” are included without the descriptions of the acronyms. The examiner will interpret VOIP as Voice over Internet Protocol, and PSTN as Public Switched Telephone Network. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11, 17, 24, 26, 29, 36, 38-41, 47-48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110214171 to Wolfond et al. (hereinafter Wolfond), in view of US 20100242106 to Harris et al. (hereinafter Harris).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfond teaches,
A system for authentication, comprising: (Title, teaches multimode credential authentication.)
a validation system; (Abstract & fig. 7, teach authentication by scoring / ranking first and second credentials.)
an agent configured to communicate a first credential indicating an identification to the validation system and communicate a second credential indicating the identification to a verification service, (fig. 7 and [0088-90] teach the identity scoring facility 400 receiving credentials from the agent. Fig. 7, 700-722 teach the first and second credentials discussed in detail below regarding [0089-98]. See also Abstract, teaching the first and second credentials being used for authentication by scoring the credentials. [0035] teaches distinct servers for credentials, sample acquisition, and identity scoring, discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 26 below. Additionally, fig. 1 & [0032] teach identity scoring separate from a financial facility / third party.) (Harris, further discussed below, also teaches client agents 120 in figs. 1D & 2B providing information for vServer 275 which authenticates, also discussed below in rejection of claim 26.)
… wherein the validation system includes:
a database configured to store authorized user data; and (fig. 1, credential reference records 202, see also fig. 7, 710)
a portal configured to provide selection of the verification service (fig. 7, 716, teaches selecting the second channel. [0033] teaches identity system working web site or other secure database on network/internet. ) wherein the validation system is configured to compare the first credential to the authorized user data, determine a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data, (fig. 7, 700-708 at [0089-92] teaching receiving non-biometric credential and scoring / “confidence level”. Also, fig. 7, 710-716 at [0093-98] teaches first biometric credential being received and scored. ) receive a verification of the second credential from the verification service, (fig. 7, 718-720 in [0105-106] teaches scoring the second biometric credential.) and modify the confidence level based on the verification. (fig. 7, 722 in [0107] teaches ultimate identity score based on the scoring of the first and second credentials.)
Wolfond fails to explicitly teach selecting verification service from a plurality of verification services,
However, Harris teaches,
a portal configured to provide selection of the verification service from a plurality of verification services, …. ([0013] teaches based on a policy, selecting an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client. See also, fig. 2B showing plurality of vServers 275a-n, which are the selectable plurality of servers.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond with the added ability to select from a plurality of verification / authentication servers when an authentication server is down or based on a policy, as taught by Harris, for the purpose of increasing efficiency by providing multiple options of authentication servers to prevent failure in the ability to authenticate, and thus, increasing efficiency while maintaining security, and/or based on a policy, selecting an authentication server, and thus, increasing security.
Regarding claim 2, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one application programming interface (API) communicatively coupling the verification service with the agent and the validation system. (Harris, [0067] teaches using an API when performing monitoring an agent using an API. See also, at least, [0103] & [0124].)
Regarding claim 3, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one API includes a first API at the validation system and a second API installed on a machine on which the agent is running. (fig. 2b & [0041] teaches appliance 200 which is an interface, that performs communications between client agents 120 and servers 106. [0067] teaches monitoring agent 197 of appliance 200 including API. fig. 3, teaches the 120 client agent, where [0124] teaches an API of the client agent 120.)
Regarding claim 6, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1, wherein the verification service interfaces with the agent via a web service. (Harris, in at least [0061] teaches the applications using protocols such as HTTP, which is a web service.)
Regarding claim 7, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1, wherein the verification service includes endpoint service and detection. (Harris, [0045] teaches that client 102 may be client nodes or endpoints. [0064] teaches the appliance 200 having monitoring agent 197 performing collection of data upon detection of any user data from any user input.)
Regarding claim 11, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a user device on which the agent runs, wherein the first credential includes data representative of an identity of the user device, the data including at least one of location information, voice information, and video information. (Wolfond, [0090] teaches authentication using a first non-biometric credential that is an address / “location information”.)
Regarding claim 17, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1, wherein the second credential includes biometric data of a user of the agent. (Wolfond, fig. 7, 718-720 in [0105-106] teaches scoring the second biometric credential.)
Regarding claim 24, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 11, wherein the data includes at least one of a textual confirmation via an instant messaging application running on the user device and data from a web application running on the user device. (Wolfond, [0085] teaches the displaying a notification message.) (Harris, [0006] also teaches the client being informed that the authentication is successful by being granted access.)
Regarding claim 26, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the verification service is a third-party service separate from the validation system. (Wolfond, [0035] teaches distinct servers for credentials, sample acquisition, and identity scoring.) (Harris, fig. 2b & [0008] teaches that vServer 275 of appliance 200 performs authentication. [0134] teaches that client 102 / client agent 120 provide information, including identity information, for access / authentication, to the appliance 200, which includes vServer 275.)
Regarding claim 29, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The method for authentication, comprising:
selecting, via a portal of a validation system, a verification service from a plurality of verification services separate from the validation system;
receiving, at the validation system, a first credential from an agent indicating an identification;
comparing the first credential to authorized user data stored in an authorized user database;
determining a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data;
communicating to the verification service a second credential from the agent indicating the identification;
receiving, via the verification service, verification of the second credential;
modifying the confidence level based on the verification.
Claim 29 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 36, Wolfond and Harris teach,
A method for authentication, comprising:
selecting a verification service from a plurality of verification services;
receiving, at a validation system, a first credential from an agent indicating an identification;
comparing the first credential to authorized user data;
determining a confidence level of validity of the identification based on the comparison of the first credential to the authorized user data;
communicating to the verification service a second credential indicating the identification;
receiving a verification of the second credential from the verification service;
modifying the confidence level based on the validation.
Claim 36 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 38, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The features of 38 below are rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above, with additional limitations taught by Wolfond and Harris, as included below.
A system for identity authentication on a communication platform, comprising:
a database configured to store authorized user data;
a first node that creates an identification and is configured to communicate the identification; (Regarding “first node”, Harris, [0045] teaches an endpoint that is a node, where the node is a client.)
at least one second node configured to: (Regarding “second node,” Harris, [0046] teaches that a server is a different node than the client. Abstract, teaches an authentication virtual server. See also, fig. 2b, Appliance 200 which pass data to vServers 275a-n, which perform authentication.)
receive the identification;
compare the identification to the authorized user data;
determine a confidence level for the first node; and
communicate a signal indicating the confidence level; and (See discussion of Wolfond and Harris below, and in the rejection of claim 1.)
a user interface configured to present an indication of the confidence level in response to the signal. (Wolfond, [0077] teaches a notifying / displaying by user device and facilities. [0085] teaches the displaying a notification message. Examiner asserts it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the facility 500 to display results that Wolfond provides to the facility 500, when a transaction is approved or disapproved.) (Harris, [0073] teaches that each of the devices of fig. 2a, including appliance 200 include a display, which one of ordinary skill in the art could use to display the results of vServer 275 which is part of appliance 200. [0267] teaches vServer transmitting displayable data to client. Table 7 and [0256-257] teach display of authentication / authorization information, where the vServer authorizes a client to connect to another server 106.)
Regarding claim 39, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 38, wherein the first node is configured to communicate a credential to a verification service, and wherein the at least one second node is configured to receive a verification from the verification service based on the credential. (Wolfond, [0048] teaches different device working together to authenticate credential, where the devices are shown in fig. 1, and also teaches providing facility 500 with identity proof score.) (Harris, [0045-46] teach that the different devices such as client and servers, may be nodes. Fig. 2B teaches vServer 275 performing authentication, which is provided to appliance 200 and services 270.)
Regarding claim 40, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 39, wherein the validation system is configured to modify the confidence level based on the verification. (Wolfond, fig. 7, 722 in [0107] teaches ultimate identity score based on the scoring of the first and second credentials, also shown in rejection of claim 1.)
Claim 40 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 41, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 39, further comprising:
at least one application programming interface (API) communicatively coupling the verification service with the first node and the at least one second node.
Claim 41 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 and/or 3 above.
Regarding claim 47, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 39, wherein the communication platform includes email communication software. (Harris, [0062] teaches servers providing email, [0106] teaches vServer using email to communicate.)
Regarding claim 48, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 39,
wherein the verification includes at least one of a textual confirmation via an instant messaging application running on the user device and data from a web application running on the user device.
Claim 48 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 24 above.
Regarding claim 50, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The features of 50 below are rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above, with additional limitations taught by Wolfond and Harris, as included below.
A system for identity authentication on a communication platform, comprising:
a database configured to store authorized user data;
a first node configured to: (Regarding “first node”, Harris, [0045] teaches an endpoint that is a node, where the node is a client.)
communicate the identification; and
communicate a credential to a verification service;
at least one second node configured to: (Regarding “second node,” Harris, [0046] teaches that a server is a different node than the client. Abstract, teaches an authentication virtual server. See also, fig. 2b, Appliance 200 which pass data to vServers 275a-n, which perform authentication.)
receive the identification;
compare the identification to the authorized user data;
determine a confidence level for the first node;
receive a verification from the verification service based on the credential;
update the confidence level based on the verification; and
Claim 50 above is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 38 above.
communicate a signal indicating the confidence level; and (See discussion of Wolfond and Harris below, and in the rejection of claim 1.)
a user interface configured to present an indication of the confidence level in response to the signal. (Wolfond, [0077] teaches a notifying / displaying by user device and facilities. [0085] teaches the displaying a notification message. Examiner asserts it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the facility 500 to display results that Wolfond provides to the facility 500, when a transaction is approved or disapproved.) (Harris, [0073] teaches that each of the devices of fig. 2a, including appliance 200 include a display, which one of ordinary skill in the art could use to display the results of vServer 275 which is part of appliance 200. [0267] teaches vServer transmitting displayable data to client. Table 7 and [0256-257] teach display of authentication / authorization information, where the vServer authorizes a client to connect to another server 106.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20150334098 to Keys et al. (hereinafter Keys).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the verification service interfaces with the agent (As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, both Wolfond and Harris teach interfacing between verification / authentication system and agent using interfaces.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach using an SDK when interfacing between an agent and verification / authentication services,
However, Keys teaches,
wherein the verification service interfaces with the agent via a software development kit (SDK). ([0074] teaches an agent, authentication hub, and SDK. In detail, [0089] teaches the client side SDK being used by client to submit device attributes based on an authentication request by system 100.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Keys, which also teaches a level of authentication (Abstract), and additionally teaches using an SDK when interfacing between an agent and verification / authentication services ([0089]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to utilize an SDK to provide device attributes during an verification / authentication, as taught by Keys, for the purpose of increasing security by utilizing additional information, such as device attributes, during authentication / verification.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20220253511 to Popa et al. (hereinafter Popa).
Regarding claim 5, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the verification service interfaces with the agent via a (Harris, [0124] & [0126] teaches the use of hooks.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach the use of a webhook in interfacing,
However, Popa teaches,
wherein the verification service interfaces with the agent via a webhook. ([0066] teaches communications between verification server 103 and client occurring using webhooks.) (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, both Wolfond and Harris teach the client including an agent.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Popa, which also teaches two factor authentication (Abstract) and the use of biometrics ([0023]), and additionally teaches using webhooks for communications between clients and verification servers ([0066]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to use webhooks when interfacing between verification services and a client / agent, as taught by Popa, for the purpose of increasing computational efficiency by using webhooks to enable real-time, event-driven communication between applications, to avoid constant checking / polling, while maintaining security.
Claims 8, 30, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20210314331 to Singh (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 8, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach a virtual marketplace that provides multiple verification services,
However, Singh teaches,
wherein the plurality of verification services is presented via a virtual marketplace via the portal. ([0012] teaches an online marketplace that provides identity verification data services which may be provided by different bureaus / verification services.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Singh, which also teaches identity verification (Abstract), and additionally teaches an online marketplace that provides different verification services ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to have a marketplace provide multiple options for identity verification, as taught by Singh, for the purpose of increasing security by providing verification using different verification services that have access to different verification data.
Regarding claim 30, Wolfond, Harris, and Singh teach,
The method of claim 29, further comprising:
presenting, at the portal, the plurality of verification services via a virtual marketplace.
Claim 30 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 42, Wolfond, Harris, and Singh teach,
The system of claim 39, further comprising:
a portal to allow selection of a plurality of verification services presented via a virtual marketplace.
Claim 42 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Claims 9, 31, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20230396428 to Gunn et al. (hereinafter Gunn).
Regarding claim 9, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the validation system is configured to determine a . (Wolfond, Abstract teaches scoring credentials.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach using scoring / confidence level to determine a deepfake condition,
However, Gunn teaches,
wherein the validation system is configured to determine a deepfake condition in response to the confidence level. ([0058] teaches using scoring to determine a deepfake.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Gunn, which also teaches authentication (Abstract), using biometrics including heart rhythms ([0061-62]) and scoring ([0058]), and additionally teaches using scoring to determine if data is a deepfake ([0058]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to determine if information is a deepfake, as taught by Gunn, for the purpose of increasing security by detecting a more recent method / deepfake of providing false data..
Regarding claim 31, Wolfond, Harris, and Gunn teach,
The method of claim 29, further comprising:
determining a deepfake condition in response to the confidence level.
Claim 31 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 37, Wolfond, Harris, and Gunn teach,
The method of claim 36, further comprising:
determining a deepfake condition in response to the confidence level.
Claim 37 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 9 above.
Claims 10, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20200406859 to Hassani (hereinafter Hassani).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the authorized user data (Wolfond, fig. 1, credential reference records 202, see also fig. 7, 710, such as the first and second biometric credentials of fig. 7.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach the user data / biometrics being stored in an immutable storage / blockchain,
However, Hassani teaches,
wherein the authorized user data includes immutable data stored on the database. ([0035] teaches storing user biometric data on a blockchain, which is understood to be immutable. [0044] teaches that the biometric is a token. Abstract, teaches authentication using blockchains and tokens.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Hassani, which also teaches authentication using tokens (Abstract) where the tokens may be biometrics of a user ([0044]), and additionally teaches storing biometrics of a user on a blockchain ([0035]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to maintain user authentication data / biometrics on an immutable storage / blockchain, as taught by Hassani, for the purpose of increasing security by maintain user biometrics that are used for authentication on an immutable data source that is extremely difficult hack, so that authentication data cannot be changed by a hacker.
Regarding claim 43, Wolfond, Harris, and Hassani teach,
The system of claim 39, wherein the authorized user data includes immutable data stored on the database.
Claim 43 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 45, Wolfond, Harris, and Hassani teach,
The system of claim 39, wherein the at least one second node is communicatively coupled with a blockchain for verifying the identification.
Claim 45 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 10 above.
Claims 12-16 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20240248971 to Rao et al. (hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claim 12, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the validation system . (Harris, Abstract and fig. 7 teach first and second credentials being scored / “confidence level.”)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach using machine learning to generate a score / confidence level of credentials,
However, Rao teaches,
wherein the validation system includes at least one machine learning model trained to generate the confidence level based on the first credential and the second credential. (fig. 2 & [0050-51] teach a same score model that performs biometric evaluation. [0051] last sentence teaches that different biometrics may be used. [0022] teaches two factor authentication / first and second credentials.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Rao, which also teaches identifying a user based on behavioral biometrics (Abstract), and additionally teaches using machine learning models ([0047]) including score models 210 that use biometric evaluation ([0050-51]) where the model improves its biometric scoring ability ([0056]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to utilize machine learning in biometric authentication, as taught by Rao, for the purpose of increasing security by training models to improve biometric evaluations and improve biometric scoring.
Regarding claim 13, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The system of claim 12, further comprising:
an artificial intelligence engine that trains the machine learning model using the first credential and the verification. (Rao, [0109] teaches using supervisor / artificial neural networks to train or fitting of the parameters of the machine learning (ML) model.) “artificial”
Regarding claim 14, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The system of claim 12,
wherein the machine learning model is configured to adjust a function for determining the confidence level by adjusting a relative functional weight of at least one of the first credential and the second credential. (Rao, [0056] teaches adjusting the weights of the models to improve scoring of biometrics. Both the device fingerprint model 204 / first credential and the same user score model 210 of fig. 2 may be adjusted.)
Regarding claim 15, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The system of claim 14,
wherein the validation system is configured to determine a reliability score for the verification service based on the weight for the second credential and present, at the portal, an indication of the reliability score. (Rao, [0056] teaches adjusting the weights of the models to improve scoring of biometrics. Both the device fingerprint model 204 / first credential and the same user score model 210 of fig. 2 may be adjusted.)
Regarding claim 16, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The system of claim 15, wherein the validation system is configured to recommend an alternative verification service of the plurality of verification services based on the reliability score. (Rao, fig. 2 and [0059-60] teach additional security measures 214 needing to be performed when the threshold at 212 is not high enough.)
Regarding claim 32, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The method of claim 29, further comprising:
training, via an artificial intelligence engine, at least one machine learning model to generate the confidence level based on the first credential and the second credential.
Claim 32 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 12 & 13 above.
Regarding claim 33, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The method of claim 29, further comprising:
adjusting a function for determining the confidence level by adjusting a relative functional weight of the first credential and the second credential.
Claim 33 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 34, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The method of claim 33, further comprising:
determining a reliability score for the verification service based on the weight for the second credential and present, at the portal, an indication of the reliability score.
Claim 34 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 35, Wolfond, Harris, and Rao teach,
The method of claim 34, further comprising:
recommending, via the validation system, an alternative verification service of the plurality of verification services based on the reliability score.
Claim 35 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 16 above.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20140188770 to Agrafioti et al. (hereinafter Agrafioti).
Regarding claim 18, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 17,
wherein the biometric data includes at least one of a (Wolfond, [0046] teaches biometric sensing / authentication including fingerprints and voice sampling.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach the use of electrocardiograms as the biometric authentication,
However, Agrafioti teaches,
wherein the biometric data includes at least one of a heartrate and an electrocardiogram, and wherein the verification service includes a heartrate monitoring system for the user. (Abstract, teaches biometric authentication, and [0004] teaches using electrocardiograms (ECG) as the biometric to identify the user. See also figs. 2-3 showing the ECG, which includes the rate of the heart. [0011] teaches temporal characteristics of heart beats.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Agrafioti, which also teaches authentication using biometrics in combination with machine learning (Abstract), and additionally teaches the use of biometrics that include electrocardiograms ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to use machine learning to perform the biometric authentication including the use of electrocardiograms, as taught by Agrafioti, for the purpose of increasing security by adding an additional biometric factor, electrocardiograms, for authentication.
Regarding claim 19, Wolfond, Harris, and Agrafioti teach,
The system of claim 18, wherein the validation system includes at least one machine learning model trained to generate the confidence level based on the electrocardiogram of a user to whom the agent is registered. (Agrafioti, Abstract, teaches biometric authentication using machine learning, and [0004] teaches using electrocardiograms (ECG) as the biometric to identify the user. See also figs. 2-3 showing the ECG. See also [0063] teaching machine learning and ECG pattern recognition.)
Regarding claim 20, Wolfond, Harris, and Agrafioti teach,
The system of claim 19, wherein the heartrate monitoring system is configured to identify the user based on the electrocardiogram. (Agrafioti, Abstract, teaches biometric authentication using machine learning, and [0004] teaches using electrocardiograms (ECG) as the biometric to identify the user. See also at least [0063-64].)
Regarding claim 21, Wolfond, Harris, and Agrafioti teach,
The system of claim 19, further comprising:
an artificial intelligence engine that trains the machine learning model using the electrocardiogram. (Agrafioti, [0122-123] teach LDA machine learning using ECG, and LDA learning technique / supervised learning that is trained. See also, [0188] teaching training using ECG.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of Agrafioti, in view of Rao.
Regarding claim 22, Wolfond, Harris, and Agrafioti teach,
The system of claim 20,
wherein the machine learning model is configured to adjust a function for determining the confidence level . (Agrafioti, [0095-96] teaches an ECG and score level. [0121] teaches comparing to a threshold.)
Wolfond, Harris, and Agrafioti fail to explicitly teach adjusting weights of the model based on biometrics,
However, Rao teaches,
wherein the machine learning model is configured to adjust a function for determining the confidence level by adjusting a relative functional weight of at least one of the first credential and the . (Rao, [0056] teaches adjusting the weights of the models to improve scoring of the biometrics. Both the device fingerprint model 204 / first credential and the same user score model 210 of fig. 2 may be adjusted.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Agrafioti, which also teaches authentication using biometrics in combination with machine learning (Abstract), and additionally teaches the use of biometrics that include electrocardiograms ([0004]), with Rao, which also teaches identifying a user based on behavioral biometrics (Abstract), and additionally teaches using machine learning models ([0047]) including score models 210 that use biometric evaluation ([0050-51]) where the model improves its biometric scoring ability by adjusting weights ([0056]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond, Harris, and Agrafioti with the added ability to adjust weights in machine learning in biometric authentication / identification to better train the machine learning, as taught by Rao, for the purpose of increasing security by training models and adjusting the weights of the models to improve biometric evaluations and improve biometric scoring.
Claims 23 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20230185423 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 23, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 11,
wherein the user device is configured to run . (Wolfond, [0085] teaches the displaying a notification message.) (Harris, [0006] also teaches the client being informed that the authentication is successful by being granted access.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach using conferencing or email to present the confidence level,
However, Wang teaches,
wherein the user device is configured to run a conferencing software or an email application that presents the confidence level. ([0032] teaches the server delivering an authentication result and rank which grants a user access to different levels of access in the conferencing screen.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Wang, which also teaches authentication (Abstract) including biometric authentication ([0005]), and additionally teaches the server delivering an authentication result and rank which grants a user access to different levels of access in the conferencing screen ([0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to provide authentication results including confidence / rank using a conferencing software, as taught by Wang, for the purpose of increasing security by restricting users based on the confidence / ranking of the authentication result.
Regarding claim 46, Wolfond, Harris, and Wang teach,
The system of claim 39, wherein the communication platform includes conferencing software configured to present the confidence level, wherein the confidence level is representative of user authentication for users of the conferencing software.
Claim 46 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 23 above.
Claims 25 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20230082094 to Keret et al. (hereinafter Keret).
Regarding claim 25, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 11,
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach authenticating using a voice provided over VOIP or PSTN,
However, Keret teaches,
wherein the voice information is provided via at least one of VOIP and PSTN. ([0004] teaches “During voice communications, such as communications over a publicly switched telephone network (PSTN), cellular network, voice over IP (VoIP), voice over LTE (VoLTE), and/or voice communications over data networks, voice biometric authentication and fraud detection may be done.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Keret, which also teaches biometric / voice print fraud prevention / authentication (Abstract), and additionally teaches using voice provided over VOIP and/or PSTN to authenticate a user ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to provide voice authentication while using VOIP and/or PSTN, as taught by Keret, for the purpose of increasing computational efficiency.
Regarding claim 49, Wolfond, Harris, and Keret teach,
The system of claim 39, further wherein the credential includes voice information provided via at least one of VOIP and PSTN.
Claim 49 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 25 above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20190020480 to Camenisch et al. (hereinafter Camenisch).
Regarding claim 27, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the validation system provides certificate . (Harris, [0169] teaches supporting certificate based authentication, and fig. 2b teaches an appliance 200 with vServer 275 that performs authentication.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach certificate transparency / logging of certificates for auditing,
However, Camenisch teaches,
wherein the validation system provides certificate transparency. ([0053] teaches an authentication system with a tamper proof log for auditing that has a Certificate Transparency type architecture. [0058] teaches usage of digital signatures, which is related to claim 28 below.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Camenisch, which also teaches an authentication system (Title), and additionally teaches an authentication system with a tamper proof log for auditing that has a Certificate Transparency type architecture ([0053]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to use a certificate transparency to log authentication events, and potentially revoke certificates (Abstract), as taught by Camenisch, for the purpose of increasing security by maintaining a log for auditing.
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of Camenisch, in view of US 20220067814 to Goncalves et al. (hereinafter Goncalves).
Regarding claim 28, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 1,
wherein the validation system employs . (Harris, [0169] teaches certificate based authentication, which uses signatures for verification / authentication.)
Wolfond and Harris fail to explicitly teach the use of a claimant model, which involves logging and verifying important events,
However, Camenisch teaches,
wherein the validation system employs a . (In the art of computer networking a claimant model is a formal framework for logging and verifying important events.) ([0053] teaches an authentication system with a tamper proof log for auditing that has a Certificate Transparency type architecture. [0058] teaches usage of digital signatures. See also rejection of claim 27 above.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Camenisch, which also teaches an authentication system (Title), and additionally teaches an authentication system with a tamper proof log for auditing that has a Certificate Transparency type architecture ([0053]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to use a certificate transparency to log authentication events, and potentially revoke certificates (Abstract), as taught by Camenisch, for the purpose of increasing security by maintaining a log for auditing.
Wolfond, Harris, and Camenisch fail to explicitly teach “claimant model”,
However, Goncalves teaches,
wherein the validation system employs a claimant model for verifying . ([0100-101] teach a claimant model and authentication to find a claimant. [0072] also teaches authentication.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Camenisch, which also teaches an authentication system (Title), and additionally teaches an authentication system with a tamper proof log for auditing that has a Certificate Transparency type architecture ([0053]), with Goncalves, which also teaches authentication ([0072]), and additionally teaches use of a claimant model and authentication ([0100-101]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond, Harris, and Camenisch with the added ability to use a claimant model to find a claimant, as taught by Goncalves, for the purpose of increasing efficiency in finding claimants while maintain security by using authentication.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfond, in view of Harris, in view of US 20210105270 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 44, Wolfond and Harris teach,
The system of claim 39,
wherein the identification is (Harris, [0085-85] teaches the use of encryption for communications between devices.)
Wolfond and Harris fails to explicitly teach, use of post quantum secure encryption.
However, Zhao teaches,
wherein the identification is post-quantum secure. ([0126-127] teaches encrypting biometrics with quantum secure key when passing through a network.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wolfond, which teaches authenticating a user based on at least a first and second credential, both of which are scored, to obtain in ultimate score (Abstract and fig. 7), with Harris, which also teaches authentication using credentials ([0007]), and additionally teaches select an authentication virtual server of the plurality of authentication virtual servers to authenticate the client ([0013]), and the use of agents and APIs ([0067]), with Zhao, which also teaches identity authentication (Title) and use of biometrics ([0004]), and additionally teaches encrypting biometrics with quantum secure key when passing through a network. ([0126-127]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Wolfond and Harris with the added ability to use quantum secure encryption of biometrics / credentials, as taught by Zhao, for the purpose of increasing security.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILLIAM AVERY whose telephone number is (571) 272-3942. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.W.A./
/FARID HOMAYOUNMEHR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2495