DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to claims 1-8 and 11-15 filed on 03/01/2026 for examination. Claims 1-8 and 11-15 is/are being examined and are pending.
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 .
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.
Interview/Voicemail
Note: Examiner reached out to applicant on 05/08/2026, as well as 05/14/2026, and left a voicemail (Marc Boillot: 954-658-0418) regarding a potential Examiner’s Amendment to resolve deficiencies in the claim set – but a response was not received.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims dated 03/01/2026 are persuasive and have overcome each and every claim objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 4, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “if authenticated, […]” in lines 15-16. Claims must be positively recited. Examiner suggests amending to, e.g., “when authenticated, […]” or similar, if intended. Claims 11 and 15 recite a similar deficiency, and are objected to under like rationale.
Claim 2 recites “receiving a PAP (388) Attestation […]” in lines 15-17. Element numeric annotations should not be included in the claim language. Examiner suggests amending to, e.g., “receiving a PAP .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Particularly:
Claim 1 recites “prompting the user to select from the Attestation a subset of attribute names, but not attribute values, called pivotal attributes that the user wants the Issuing Authority to endorse” (emphasis added) in line 11. It is unclear whether this is purely nomenclature or intended by applicant as a mandatory limitation. Examiner suggests, e.g., “prompting the user to select from the Attestation a subset of attribute names, but not attribute values,
Claim 1 introduces “non-repudiable endorsement” as well as “pre-endorsement” in lines 1-2. Subsequently, claim 1 recites “that endorsement” in lines 15-16. There is unclear antecedent basis as to which of the endorsements are being referred to by “that” endorsement in lines 15-16. Note: Referenced elements must be explicitly referenced. Claim 15 recites a similar deficiency, and is rejected under like rationale. Claims 2-8 incorporate the deficiency of their parent claim, and are rejected under like rationale.
Claim 1 recites “whereby the Issuing Authority obtains its own independent attribute values for the pivotal attributes, and examines the Attestation to ensure corresponding attribute name and value pairs match against a registry in view of its own investigation and search” [emphasis added] in lines 23-25. There is unclear antecedent basis as to what element is being referenced by “its”. Note: Claim elements must be explicitly referenced. Claim 14 recites a similar deficiency, and is rejected under like rationale. Claims 2-8 incorporate the deficiency of their parent claim, and are rejected under like rationale.
Claim 8 recites “such as terms of use and an expiry date” in lines 2-3. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites “the pivotal attributes” in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-8 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Further, claims 11-13 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance (in accordance with MPEP 1302.14): The primary reason for allowable subject matter of the foregoing claims in the inclusion of a limitation in the independent claim which is not found in prior art references. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites, inter alia, “responsive to an attestation request from the mobile device, receiving a signed or an unsigned Attestation from a Private Attribute Provider (PAP), wherein the Attestation includes attributes with corresponding attribute names and values, and consists of either: PAP signature deemed a pre-requisite for an Issuing Authority to endorse and release the Attestation to the user, or a PAP challenge as a signaling for a pre-endorsement for the Issuing Authority before the Attestation is released to the user; prompting the user to select from the Attestation a subset of attribute names, but not attribute values, called pivotal attributes that the user wants the Issuing Authority to endorse: […] responsive to the validating, receiving from the Issuing Authority the signed Server Proof, which comprises a hashed Attestation of the Attestation, a hashed user certified attributes of the subset of attribute names, an Issuing Authority Challenge, and a hashed User Public Key of the Public Key (PuK); producing an Endorsed Attestation from the signed Server Proof according to whether the PAP signature or the PAP challenge was included in the Attestation; and presenting the Endorsed Attestation to a Verifier for the user to access a service offered by the Verifier.”
Art found of record, e.g., the combination of Toth (US20190097812) and Everson (US20200100108) teach a method for non-repudiable endorsement of a private attestation, the method comprising: receiving an Attestation from a Private Attribute Provider (PAP), wherein the Attestation includes attributes with corresponding attribute names and values, and an optional PAP signature; the method characterized by: binding a user of a connected device to the Attestation, by: collecting a set of user certified attribute names from said attributes selected by the user, authenticating the user to an Issuing Authority, generating a key pair for the user, comprising a public key (PuK) and a private key (PrK), transmitting said public key (PuK) to said Issuing Authority; and binding pivotal attributes to equivalent attributes of the Issuing Authority, by: requesting the Issuing Authority to authorize user and endorse said Attestation based on it validating said set of user certified attribute names, and if validated, receiving from said Issuing Authority a signed Server Proof, and wherein said step of checking a validity includes authenticating said user certified attribute names to a civil registry, an identification documents registry, an administrative registry or any source of prior registered information for connected device authentication of a user of said connected device (see as particularly presented in Non-Final Office Action dated 12/04/2025), as well as inclusion of EPID cryptography (see, e.g., Smith at [0002]-[0004]), however fails to teach similarly producing an Endorsed Attestation according to which of the PAP signature/PAP Challenge structure were used (and associated claimed structure) as is presently amended into independent claim 1.
Other prior art, e.g., Barbir (US20140173697) teaches a system wherein a relying party uses an authentication broker to gather information from multiple identity service providers and attribute providers, as well as aggregating and validating identity information (see, e.g., Barbir at abstract, [0008-012]), yet similarly fails to remedy the aforementioned deficiency. Galehouse et al. (US20140337618) teaches a preregistered challenge to validate a certificate enrollment request before issuing a certificate (see, e.g., Galehouse at abstract, [0034-035], [0191-193]), yet similarly fails to remedy the aforementioned deficiency.
None of the prior art of record, either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious all features of the invention of the present application claim 1 at or before the time it was filed. Independent claim(s) 11 and 15 similarly have been amended to recite language directed to the aforementioned subject matter. Dependent claims 2-8 (of claim 1) incorporate the limitations of their parent claim, and are objected to as allowable for at least the same rationale.
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 JOSHUA RAYMOND WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-4365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, & Alternate Fridays.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached on 5712723787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see 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.
/J.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights