DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statement on 5/29/2024 has been received and considered.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0011821 to Griswold in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0244771 to Hafezi.
With regard to claim 1, Griswold discloses a physical token (e.g., see at least Fig. 3A that shows a player tracking card, wherein paragraph 81 states that the tracking card could also be various forms, including a “token”) comprising: a substrate (e.g., the player tracking card 100 or “token” will have a substrate to support the object); and a passive identifier device (e.g., see at least Fig. 3B that includes a barcode 121) for passively providing a token identifier associated with the token to a token authentication device (e.g., see at least paragraphs 8 and 9 for discussion card readers); and
[claim 5] wherein the passive identifier device comprises a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) circuit, and wherein causing an RFID transceiver of the token authentication device to transmit an electromagnetic authentication signal proximate the RFID circuit causes the RFID circuit to transmit an electromagnetic signal comprising the token identifier to the token authentication device (e.g., see at least paragraphs 57-59 for discussion of RFID circuit; see also Fig. 3B).
With regard to claim 1, Griswold does not expressly disclose the token is a cryptographic token. In paragraph 76, Griswold notes that messages are encrypted and deciphered. To promote compact prosecution, the Examiner relies upon a secondary reference to expressly disclose a cryptographic token.
In the same field of endeavor, Hafezi teaches a cryptographic token (e.g., see at least paragraph 161 that teaches that “a physical device such as a security token, also otherwise known as hardware token, hardbad token, an authentication token, a USB token, a cryptographic token, or a key fob” may be used to provide a code to an authentication server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Griswold with a cryptographic token as taught by Hafezi in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, a cryptographic token provide additional security protection to authenticate a user.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold in view of Hafezi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0046548 to Kamijo.
With regard to claims 2-4 and 6, Griswold fails to expressly disclose the use of a 3D code that is formed from an additive manufacturing process.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Kamijo teaches creating a 3D code that is formed from an additive manufacturing process (e.g., see at least Figs. 4-7 that shows a 3D printed QR Code and camera reader; see also paragraph 45 that states “barcode 50 may be printed (3D printed), molded or otherwise formed in a surface of the object”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Griswold with 3D printed code as taught by Kamigo in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using a 3D printer is a cost effective production method and could be provide a 3D code for additional security purposes.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold in view of Hafezi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0046747 to Brown.
With regard to claims 7-9, Griswold fails to expressly disclose the use of a two-factor authentication (2FA) code using an LED display.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Brown the use of a device with a 2FA code using an LED display (e.g., see at least paragraph 20 that discusses 2FA with a PIN and paragraph discusses a device that may resemble an RSA SecurID device and has a small LCD/LED screen). The examiner asserts that using a multicolor LED is well-known in the art to convey information if Brown is found to only be a single-color LED.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Griswold with 2FA as taught by Brown in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using 2FA is common for creating additional security.
Claims 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0011821 to Griswold in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0244771 to Hafezi and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0058591 to Sharpe.
With regard to claim 10, Griswold in combination with Hafezi make obvious a cryptographic token management device as set forth above for claim 1, but is silent regarding the use of a token dispenser for dispensing physical tokens. With regard to claim 11, cryptographic tokens necessarily include blockchain transactions. With regard to claim 13, Griswold discloses an optical reader for reading the bar code (e.g., see at least paragraph for discussion of readers and cameras, which are necessary to read barcode 121). Claims 15 and 16 are made obvious by Griswold in view of Hafezi as set forth above for claims 1 and 5. Further, Griswold discloses a display (see Figs. 3A, 3B, displays 120, 121; see also paragraphs 72-75 for discussion of dislays)
In the same field of endeavor, Sharpe teaches use of a token dispenser for dispensing physical tokens. (e.g., see at least paragraph 5 that teaches the use of “a token dispenser is configured to dispense a physical token, and the physical token is configured to provide the token identifier and the cryptographic signature to a token validator”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Griswold with a token dispenser as taught by Sharpe in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, a token dispenser provides greater available to issue tokens that additional security protection to authenticate a user.
Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold in view of Hafezi and Sharpe as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0046548 to Kamijo.
With regard to claims 2-4 and 6, Griswold fails to expressly disclose the use of a 3D code that is formed from an additive manufacturing process.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Kamijo teaches creating a 3D code that is formed from an additive manufacturing process (e.g., see at least Figs. 4-7 that shows a 3D printed QR Code and camera reader; see also paragraph 45 that states “barcode 50 may be printed (3D printed), molded or otherwise formed in a surface of the object”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Griswold with 3D printed code as taught by Kamijo in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using a 3D printer is a cost-effective production method and could be provide a 3D code for additional security purposes.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold in view of Hafezi and Sharpe as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0046747 to Brown.
With regard to claims 14 and 17, Griswold fails to expressly disclose the use of a two-factor authentication (2FA) code using an LED display.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Brown the use of a device with a 2FA code using an LED display (e.g., see at least paragraph 20 that discusses 2FA with a PIN and paragraph discusses a device that may resemble an RSA SecurID device and has a small LCD/LED screen). The examiner asserts that using a multicolor LED is well-known in the art to convey information if Brown is found to only be a single-color LED.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Griswold with 2FA as taught by Brown in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using 2FA is common for creating additional security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0322501 to Eisen discuses a system for registering card authentication reads (e.g., see at least paragraph 35 for discussion of cryptographic token)
U.S. Patent No. 9,024,719 to Saunders discusses an RF transaction system for storing user personal data (e.g., see Fig. 1)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0215218 to Brands discusses a security token and service access system (e.g., see paragraph 2 for cryptographic token)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0002238 to Taveau for discussion of physical cryptographic token with RFID (e.g., see at least paragraph 3)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0291659 to Ward discusses tokenized credential verification system including blockchain (e.g., see at least Fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715