DETAILED ACTION
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 Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted by applicant dated 02/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 and 9-16 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-8 and 17-20 are canceled. Claims 21-27 are newly added.
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.
Claims 10-15 and 22-27 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.
As per claims 10 and 22, the claims recite “determine that the event has occurred”. The claims also recite the limitations “extract…” and “transmit…”. It is unclear if the extract and transmit limitations are in response to the occurrence of the event.
Dependent claims 11-15 and 23-27 depend on claims 10 and 22 respectively and they do not clarify the issues, therefore they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrum US 2024/0080195, in view of Parla US 2024/0070315.
As per claim 1, Schrum teaches an apparatus for authentication, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive first authentication information for a user (Schrum paragraph [0033], [0052]-[0054], receive authentication information);
generate an authentication token based on the received first authentication information, wherein the authentication token does not include the first authentication information (Schrum paragraph [0036]-[0038], [0058]-[0061], generate authentication token);
receive user information for the user; obtain an identifier token, wherein the identifier token is a composite token and includes an identity token generated based on the received user information; add the authentication token to the identifier token (Schrum paragraph [0033], [0036]-[0038], [0058]-[0061], obtain composite token which includes user information token and authentication token); and
store the identifier token for authenticating the user (Schrum paragraph [0039]-[0043], [0062]-[0066], storing composite token for authentication).
Schrum does not explicitly disclose anonymous identifier token.
Parla teaches anonymous identifier token (Parla paragraph [0031], [0033], obtaining an anonymous identifier token).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schrum of obtaining a composite token with the teachings of Parla to include obtaining an anonymous identifier token in order to preserve the privacy of the user while still allowing the user access to resources.
As per claim 16, the claim claims a method essentially corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 above, and is rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrum in view of Parla, and further in view of Grodum et al. US 2021/0044580 (hereinafter Grodum).
As per claim 9, Schrum in view of Parla teaches the apparatus of claim 1, a service provider (Schrum paragraph [0044], [0057], [0068], service provider).
Schrum in view of Parla does not explicitly disclose wherein processor is further configured to: receive a request to register for an event from an entity; and
establish a channel for notifying the entity of an occurrence of the event.
Grodum teaches wherein processor is further configured to: receive a request to register for an event from an entity (Grodum paragraph [0031], register for events); and
establish a channel for notifying the entity of an occurrence of the event (Grodum paragraph [0031], notifying occurrence of event).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schrum in view of Parla with the teachings of Grodum to include registering and notifying of events because the results would have been predictable and resulted in the service provider registering for events and being notified of the events.
As per claim 21, the claim claims a method essentially corresponding to the apparatus claim 9 above, and is rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 and 22-27 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY TSANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (571) 272-3739. 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.
/HENRY TSANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495