DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 06/05/2026. Claims 5 and 16 are canceled and new dependent claims 21-22 are added. Thus claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22 are pending and claims 1, 14 and 18 are independent and each independent claim is amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Interview Summary
3. On May 13, 2026, applicant's representative attorney Jeffrey S. Marlink, Reg. No. 70,993 and examiner conducted applicant-initiated telephone interview. The summary of the interview is attached.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS), filed on 06/18/2026 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Response to Arguments
5. Referring to the independent claims 1, 14 and 18 and the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on June 5, 2026 have also been fully considered but aren’t persuasive.
Applicant argued that neither Graser (US Patent Publication No. 2008/0276308-A1, Pub. Date: Nov 6, 2008) nor Copsey (US Publication No. 2015/0012990 A1; Pub. Date: Jan 8, 2015) discloses the amended claim limitation: “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device”.
Examiner disagrees with this argument.
The office would like to point out that the amendment does not add a requirement that the credential was never entered at, never known by, or never transmitted from the client device, it rather addresses where the stored credential is maintained and whether the client device can access that stored credential.
In view of this understanding;
Copsy’s stored user credential in association with the device identifier and login identifier corresponds to the claim limitation, “credential”
Copsy’s “Proxy system/access device 240 including access module 242 and associated data storage” corresponds to the limitation, “separate credential-maintaining” component
Copsy’s computing device 210 corresponds to the claim limitation “client device”
Furthermore, Copsey’s on para. 62, 87 and 89 teaches that proxy/access device retains and uses the stored user credential to access the platform on behalf of the client application. Copsey describes computing device 210 and proxy system 240 as distinct network-connected component. The proxy receives access requests form the client, control access to platform 220, and can store and use credentials on the client application’s behalf. Copsey discloses computing device 210 communicating over network 230 with a distinct proxy system/access device 240. The access device receives and authenticates a user credentials, and Copsey expressly teaches an embodiment in which the uer credential is stored in association with the client’s device identifier and login identifier. Copsey further discloses that proxy system 240 uses the stored credentials to log into platform 220 and interact with content provisioning module 222 on behalf of the client application. In contrast, the client application is provided a login identifier for subsequent access. Thus, Copsey separates the credentials that actually accesses the secured platform from the information made available to the client; the proxy retains and uses the stored credential, while the client receives and uses the separate login identifier. Thus, Copsey’s stored user credential corresponds to the claim limitation credential because the proxy uses it to log into the secured platform. Copsey’s login identifier is evidence of inaccessibility because it is substitute information delivered to the client.
In order to clarify why Copsey discloses each and every amendment claim limitation, examiner would map Copsey with each argued claim limitation as follows:
Copsey discloses:
wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device [Para. 48 and figure 2, Copsey discloses computing device 210 that corresponds to the claim “client device” and proxy system 240 at separate nodes connected over network 230. Para. 51-52 identify proxy system 240 as an access device that receives and authenticates credentials and accesses stored login-tracking information. Para. 87 teaches storage of the user credential at that access device in association with the client’s device identifier. Thus, the credential used for platform access is maintained at the proxy/access device, physically and logically separate form computing device 210] the credential is inaccessible to the client device” [Copsey’s disclosed data flow that gives the client application a login identifier rather than stored user credential. Para. 55 teaches that the client-side access enabler receives the login identifier and provides that identifier to the application. Para. 68-69, Copsey further teaches that the application subsequently uses the login identifier while proxy system 240 interacts with the platform on the application’s behalf. Para. 89 likewise returns the login identifier to the client application while the access device itself uses the stored user credentials. Copsey additionally teaches sandboxed client applications that cannot share credentials, collectively, these teachings strongly teaches that the proxy-held credential is not exposed or retrievable by the client application., the client is provided only the substitute login identifier, thus teaches the limitation “the credential is inaccessible to the client device”]
6. In view of this understanding, the rejection set forth in the previous office action is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser et al. (Graser) (US Patent Publication No. 2008/0276308-A1, Pub. Date: Nov 6, 2008) in view of Simon Dominic Copsey (herein after referred as Copsey) (US Publication No. 2015/0012990 A1; Pub. Date: Jan 8, 2015)
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
The following is referring to independent claims 1, 14 and 18:
As per independent claim 1,Graser discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to: [Para. 0033, the method mentioned above is performed by a computer program product stored on a computer usable medium comprising computer readable program means for causing a computer to perform the method mentioned above, when said computer program product is executed on a computer]:
identify a termination associated with an access of a secured entity [Figure 1, step d, “Session closed?” and Para. 0045, “step d) a verification takes place, if the session is still active, or if the session is closed; On Figure 1, Step d, the system identifies whether or not the session associated with an access of the distributed computer system is terminated/closed or still active for a client device. Examiner Note: the distributed computer system as disclosed on para. 0029, comprises of first and second security zones that are accessed by using two different passwords which are cached in a cache memory. Note: Either the first security zone or/and the second security zone of the distributed system meets the limitation “Secured entity” Para. 0029, the distributed computer system includes first and second security zones. distributed computer system comprises at least two different security zones, wherein systems located in different security zones are only accessible by different passwords. To access a system located in a first security zone, the user has to enter a first password. The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password. To access a system located in a second security zone the user is asked to enter a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password ] for a client device [Figure 1, Step b, Para. 0043, Figure 1, Step b, Para. 0043, Opening a session takes place e.g. by starting a user terminal of the distributed computer system, “user terminal” meets the limitation client device, Figure 1, step b) a user opens a session by accessing a first system of the distributed computer system. Opening a session takes place e.g. by starting a user terminal of the distributed computer system, by starting an application, by accessing a server of the distributed computer system and the like.]
identify a credential stored for the client device [Figure 1, step g, where the “cached password” which are stored for the client device is identified to be re-used. Para. 0029, The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password….To access a system located in a second ….a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password and para. 0023, caching’ means a non-persistent storage like e.g. in a Random Access Memory (RAM) and the like in contrast to a persistent storage like e.g. in a database, a disk-storage and the like] the credential to be utilized for accessing the secured entity on behalf of the client device [Figure 1, step. e-f and g, and para. 0029 where the system on behalf of the client device checks whether or not the cached password can be utilized or re-used for accessing other systems in the same security zone using the same cached password/stored in the cache memory…]; ;and
delete the credential from storage based at least in part on the identification of the termination [Figure 1, step i, which is executed after steps e., f and g, where the system after re-using the stored credential/cached password as shown on figure 1, step g, if the session is closed step d then the system will erase the credential /cached password form the cache memory as shown on figure 1, step i. Para. 0051, If step d) leads to the result, that the session is closed, the method proceeds with step i) wherein the cached passwords are deleted by erasing the cache]
Examiner Note: Examiner also would like to point out that (Ichikawa) (US Publication No. US-2009/0222896-A1, Pub. Date: Sep. 3, 2009) which is cited at the end of this office action also discloses the claim limitation: “identify a termination associated with an access of a secured entity for a client device [See at least claim 42, wherein the client terminal further includes a notification sending unit that sends, to the administration server, a notification of termination of access to the specific storage unit] and delete the credential from storage based at least in part on the identification of the termination” [Claim 42, and the administration server further includes a deleting unit that deletes, upon receiving the notification from the client terminal, the second password/credential from the database.]
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation, “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device”
However, Copsey discloses: wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device [Para. 48 and figure 2, Copsey discloses computing device 210 that corresponds to the claim “client device” and proxy system 240 at separate nodes connected over network 230. Para. 51-52 identify proxy system 240 as an access device that receives and authenticates credentials and accesses stored login-tracking information. Para. 87 teaches storage of the user credential at that access device in association with the client’s device identifier. Thus, the credential used for platform access is maintained at the proxy/access device, physically and logically separate form computing device 210] the credential is inaccessible to the client device” [Copsey’s disclosed data flow that gives the client application a login identifier rather than stored user credential. Para. 55 teaches that the client-side access enabler receives the login identifier and provides that identifier to the application. Para. 68-69, Copsey further teaches that the application subsequently uses the login identifier while proxy system 240 interacts with the platform on the application’s behalf. Para. 89 likewise returns the login identifier to the client application while the access device itself uses the stored user credentials. Copsey additionally teaches sandboxed client applications that cannot share credentials, collectively, these teachings strongly teaches that the proxy-held credential is not exposed or retrievable by the client application., the client is provided only the substitute login identifier, thus teaches the limitation “the credential is inaccessible to the client device”]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to controlling access to a secure storage device by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing mechanism or a feature such as “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
As per independent claim 14, Graser a computing system [Claim 6, System for securely accessing a plurality of systems comprising,], comprising: memory to store one or more credentials [Par. 0011 and Claim 6, caching said password in a way that during the current session, it can be re-used when accessing other systems of the distributed computer system accessible by the same password and para. 0023, caching’ means a non-persistent storage like e.g. in a Random Access Memory (RAM) and the like…]; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors to [Para. 0011, “distributed computer system” and figure 1-2, Note: distributed computer system comprises a processors and memories] and
identify a termination associated with an access of a secured entity [Figure 1, step d, “Session closed?” and Para. 0045, “n step d) a verification takes place, if the session is still active, or if the session is closed/termination; On Figure 1, Step d, the system identifies whether or not the session associated with an access of the distributed computer system is closed or still active for a client device. Examiner Note: the distributed computer system as disclosed on para. 0029, comprises of first and second security zones that are accessed by using two different passwords which are cached in a cache memory. Note: Either the first security zone or/and the second security zone of the distributed system meets the limitation “Secured entity” Para. 0029, the distributed computer system includes first and second security zones. distributed computer system comprises at least two different security zones, wherein systems located in different security zones are only accessible by different passwords. To access a system located in a first security zone, the user has to enter a first password. The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password. To access a system located in a second security zone the user is asked to enter a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password] for a client device [Figure 1, Step b, Para. 0043, Opening a session takes place e.g. by starting a user terminal of the distributed computer system, “user terminal” that meets the limitation client device, Figure 1, step b) a user opens a session by accessing a first system of the distributed computer system. Opening a session takes place e.g. by starting a user terminal of the distributed computer system, by starting an application, by accessing a server of the distributed computer system and the like.]
identify a credential stored in the memory for the client device [Figure 1, step g, where the “cached password” which are stored for the client device is identified to be re-used. Para. 0029, The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password….To access a system located in a second ….a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password and para. 0023, caching’ means a non-persistent storage like e.g. in a Random Access Memory (RAM) …]the credential to be utilized for accessing the secured entity on behalf of the client device [Figure 1, step. e-f and g, and para. 0029, where the system on behalf of the client device checks whether or not the cached password can be utilized or re-used for accessing other systems in the same security zone using the same cached password/stored in the cache memory…]; and
delete the credential from the memory based at least in part on the identification of the termination[Figure 1, step i, which is executed after steps e., f and g, where the system after re-using the stored credential/cached password as shown on figure 1, step g, identify or checks steps d for session closure and if the session is closed at figure 1, step d then the system will erase the credential /cached password form the cache memory as shown on figure 1, step i. Para. 0051, If step d) leads to the result, that the session is closed, the method proceeds with step i) wherein the cached passwords are deleted by erasing the cache]
Examiner Note: Examiner also would like to point out that (Ichikawa) (US Publication No. US-2009/0222896-A1, Pub. Date: Sep. 3, 2009.) which is cited at the end of this office action also discloses the claim limitation: “identify a termination associated with an access of a secured entity for a client device [See at least claim 42, wherein the client terminal further includes a notification sending unit that sends, to the administration server, a notification of termination of access to the specific storage unit] and delete the credential from storage based at least in part on the identification of the termination” [Claim 42, and the administration server further includes a deleting unit that deletes, upon receiving the notification from the client terminal, the second password/credential from the database.]
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation, “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device”
However, Copsey discloses: wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device [Para. 48 and figure 2, Copsey discloses computing device 210 that corresponds to the claim “client device” and proxy system 240 at separate nodes connected over network 230. Para. 51-52 identify proxy system 240 as an access device that receives and authenticates credentials and accesses stored login-tracking information. Para. 87 teaches storage of the user credential at that access device in association with the client’s device identifier. Thus, the credential used for platform access is maintained at the proxy/access device, physically and logically separate form computing device 210] the credential is inaccessible to the client device” [Copsey’s disclosed data flow that gives the client application a login identifier rather than stored user credential. Para. 55 teaches that the client-side access enabler receives the login identifier and provides that identifier to the application. Para. 68-69, Copsey further teaches that the application subsequently uses the login identifier while proxy system 240 interacts with the platform on the application’s behalf. Para. 89 likewise returns the login identifier to the client application while the access device itself uses the stored user credentials. Copsey additionally teaches sandboxed client applications that cannot share credentials, collectively, these teachings strongly teaches that the proxy-held credential is not exposed or retrievable by the client application., the client is provided only the substitute login identifier, thus teaches the limitation “the credential is inaccessible to the client device”]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to controlling access to a secure storage device by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing mechanism or a feature such as “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
As per independent claim 18, Graser discloses a method of managing a credential for a client device [Para. 0010, An object of the invention is to improve security of SSO/Single Sign On products and of distributed computer systems providing password protections. On para. 0029, it has been described how the system manages for the client device/users to use two distinct passwords/credentials to access secure entities located in two different security zones respectively. “To access a system located in a first security zone, the user has to enter a first password. The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password. To access a system located in a second security zone the user is asked to enter a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password.”], comprising:
identify a termination associated with an access of a secured entity [Figure 1, step d, “Session closed?” and Para. 0045, “n step d) a verification takes place, if the session is still active, or if the session is closed; On Figure 1, Step d, the system identifies whether or not the session associated with an access of the distributed computer system is closed or still active for a client device. Examiner Note: the distributed computer system as disclosed on para. 0029, comprises of first and second security zones that are accessed by using two different passwords which are cached in a cache memory. Note: Either the first security zone or/and the second security zone of the distributed system meets the limitation “Secured entity” Para. 0029, the distributed computer system includes first and second security zones. distributed computer system comprises at least two different security zones, wherein systems located in different security zones are only accessible by different passwords. To access a system located in a first security zone, the user has to enter a first password. The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password. To access a system located in a second security zone the user is asked to enter a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password. Examiner Note: ] for a client device [Figure 1, Step b, Para. 0043, Figure 1, Step b, Para. 0043, Opening a session takes place e.g. by starting a user terminal of the distributed computer system, “user terminal” meets the limitation client device, Figure 1, step b) a user opens a session by accessing a first system of the distributed computer system. Opening a session takes place e.g. by starting a user terminal of the distributed computer system, by starting an application, by accessing a server of the distributed computer system and the like.]
identify a credential stored for the client device [Figure 1, step g, where the “cached password” which are stored for the client device is identified to be re-used. Para. 0029, The first password is cached and the cached first password is re-used to access other systems located in the first security zone accessible by the same first password….To access a system located in a second ….a second password that again is cached and is re-used to access other systems of the second security zone accessible by the same second password and para. 0023, caching’ means a non-persistent storage like e.g. in a Random Access Memory (RAM) and the like in contrast to a persistent storage like e.g. in a database, a disk-storage and the like] the credential to be utilized for accessing the secured entity on behalf of the client device [Figure 1, step. e-f and g, and para. 0029, where the system on behalf of the client device checks whether or not the cached password can be utilized or re-used for accessing other systems in the same security zone using the same cached password/stored in the cache memory…]; and
deleting the credential from storage based at least in part on the identification of the termination [Figure 1, step i, which is executed after steps e., f and g, where the system after re-using the stored credential/cached password as shown on figure 1, step g, checks step d for session closure and if the session is closed then the system will erase the credential /cached password form the cache memory as shown on figure 1, step i. Para. 0051, If step d) leads to the result, that the session is closed, the method proceeds with step i) wherein the cached passwords are deleted by erasing the cache]
Examiner Note: Examiner also would like to point out that (Ichikawa) (US Publication No. US-2009/0222896-A1, Pub. Date: Sep. 3, 2009.) which is cited at the end of this office action also discloses the claim limitation: “identify a termination associated with an access of a secured entity for a client device [See at least claim 42, wherein the client terminal further includes a notification sending unit that sends, to the administration server, a notification of termination of access to the specific storage unit] and delete the credential from storage based at least in part on the identification of the termination” [Claim 42, and the administration server further includes a deleting unit that deletes, upon receiving the notification from the client terminal, the second password/credential from the database.]
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation, “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device”
However, Copsey discloses: wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device [Para. 48 and figure 2, Copsey discloses computing device 210 that corresponds to the claim “client device” and proxy system 240 at separate nodes connected over network 230. Para. 51-52 identify proxy system 240 as an access device that receives and authenticates credentials and accesses stored login-tracking information. Para. 87 teaches storage of the user credential at that access device in association with the client’s device identifier. Thus, the credential used for platform access is maintained at the proxy/access device, physically and logically separate form computing device 210] the credential is inaccessible to the client device” [Copsey’s disclosed data flow that gives the client application a login identifier rather than stored user credential. Para. 55 teaches that the client-side access enabler receives the login identifier and provides that identifier to the application. Para. 68-69, Copsey further teaches that the application subsequently uses the login identifier while proxy system 240 interacts with the platform on the application’s behalf. Para. 89 likewise returns the login identifier to the client application while the access device itself uses the stored user credentials. Copsey additionally teaches sandboxed client applications that cannot share credentials, collectively, these teachings strongly teaches that the proxy-held credential is not exposed or retrievable by the client application., the client is provided only the substitute login identifier, thus teaches the limitation “the credential is inaccessible to the client device”]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to controlling access to a secure storage device by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing mechanism or a feature such as “wherein the credential is maintained separate from the client device and the credential is inaccessible to the client device” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
The following is referring to dependent claims 2-4; 6-11 15-17 and 19-20 and 21-22:
As per dependent claim 2 the combination of Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 1 above. Furthermore, Graser discloses the method, wherein the termination includes a completion of an action performed on behalf of the client device [Para. 0021, where closing a document or quitting an application is completion of an action performed on behalf of the user/client with triggers session closure or session termination. “Quitting a systems accessed during the session can take place e.g. automatically by a timeout, by closing a document or by quitting an application”]
Examiner Note: Ichikawa, which is cited at the end of this office action also discloses the claim limitation: “wherein the termination includes a completion of an action performed on behalf of the client device [See at least claim 42, wherein the termination includes a completion of an action such as a deletion of a password by an administration server on behalf of the client device. “ the client terminal further includes a notification sending unit that sends, to the administration server, a notification of termination of access to the specific storage unit, and the administration server further includes a deleting unit that deletes, upon receiving the notification from the client terminal, the second password from the database”.]
As per dependent claim 3, the combination of Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 1 above. Furthermore, Graser discloses the method, wherein the termination includes an end of a session of the client device [Para. 0045, figure 1, step d and I, step d) a verification takes place, if the session is still active, or if the session is closed. If the session is still active, the method proceeds with step e), if the session is closed, e.g. by quitting all systems of the distributed computer system, the method proceeds with step i)]
As per dependent claim 4 Graser discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 3 above.
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation, “wherein the credential is generated at a start of the session”
However, Copsey on para. 0056-0057 and 0059 discloses that at the start of session (initial startup of the app) the system detects no existing login identifier and therefore generates and returns a new login identifier/credential and this corresponds to the claim limitation, “wherein the credential is generated at a start of the session” [See parts of Para. 0056-0057 and 0059, “when a user of computing device 210 wishes to utilize an application 212 a on his computing device 210 he may activate the application (e.g., tapping or clicking on an icon, using a command on a command line, etc.). At some point during execution of the application 212 a then (e.g., on initial startup of the application 212 a, when the application 212 a first requires particular data, etc.) the application 212 a may require access to content provisioning module 222. [Para. 0056] “The access enabler module 214 a may then send a request to access that application data (e.g., a request to access the content or other data associated with that application 212 a) to content provisioning module 222, where the request includes a device identifier”[Para. 0057] “If there is no login tracking data 246 associated with the device identifier included in the received request, a request for a user credential along with a login identifier to allow access to the content provisioning module 222 ….returned to the access enabler module 214 a from which the initial access request was received. [Para. 0059]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential generation mechanism or a feature such as “wherein the credential is generated at a start of the session” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by reducing risk of credential theft and even if a session credential is compromised, the attacker has a limited time window of access and the breach cannot be used to access the systems after the session expires. [Copsey, para. 0006, method includes expiring the login identifier]
As per dependent claim 6 Graser discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 1 above.
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation, “coordinate with the secured entity to generate the credential for access to the secured entity; and store the credential with association to the client device without providing the credential to the client device”.
However, Copsey discloses: coordinate with the secured entity to generate the credential for access to the secured entity [Para. 0055; 0057-0058 and 0060 shows that the proxy system 240 and access module 242 as broker and the platform 220/content provisioning module 222 that corresponds to secure entity. The device identifier 218 corresponds to the claim limitation client ID. Copsey on these paragraphs shows the broker sending the client ID to the secured platform authenticate and generate a login identifier/credential] and store the credential with association to the client device without providing the credential to the client device [Para. 0061,” the user credentials can be authenticated access module 242 stores this login identifier in association with the device identifier (e.g., associated with computing device 210) received in the initial access request in login tracking data 246”. Note: para. 0061 discloses that the login identifier/credential is stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240 not on client device which corresponds to the claim limitation]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing mechanism or a feature such as “coordinate with the secured entity to generate the credential for access to the secured entity; and store the credential with association to the client device without providing the credential to the client device” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
As per dependent claim 20, dependent claim 20 is a method version of the medium claim 6, having the same scope as that of the above dependent claim 6. Thus, is rejection for the same reason/rationale as that of the above dependent claim 6.
As per dependent claim 7 Graser discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 6 above.
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation, wherein to coordinate with the secured entity to generate the credential includes to: “receive a key from the secured entity for generation of the credential and generating the credential utilizing the key and an identifier of the client device”
However, Copsey discloses:
receive a key from the secured entity for generation of the credential [Para. 0059, If there is no login tracking data 246 associated with the device identifier included in the received request, a request for a user credential along with a login identifier to allow access to the content provisioning module 222 may be returned. The user credential returned by the platform corresponds to the key]; and generating the credential utilizing the key and an identifier of the client device [Para 0060, When the user credential is received at proxy system 240 from the access enabler module 214 a at the computing device 210 the user may be authenticated. Note: The determination combines this key with the device identifier 218 (client ID) to create/store the login identifier, which functions as the session credential]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing/creating mechanism or a feature such as “receive a key from the secured entity for generation of the credential and generating the credential utilizing the key and an identifier of the client device” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
As per dependent claim 8 Graser discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 1 above.
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing system, further causes the computing system to: “identify a request, received from the client device, for performance of an action by the secured entity; and generate the credential based at least in part on the identification of the request”.
However, Copsey discloses:
identify a request, received from the client device, for performance of an action by the secured entity [Para. 0057, When the application 212 a first attempts to access content provisioning module 222, access enabler module 214 a may access the identifier 218 on the computing device 210. The access enabler module 214 a may then send a request to access that application data (e.g., a request to access the content or other data associated with that application 212 a) to content provisioning module 222] and generate the credential based at least in part on the identification of the request” [Para. 0059. If there is no login tracking data 246 associated with the device identifier included in the received request, a request for a user credential along with a login identifier (which is generated based on the client ID) to allow access to the content provisioning module 222 may be/created/generated and returned]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they all are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing/creating mechanism or a feature such as “identify a request, received from the client device, for performance of an action by the secured entity; and generate the credential based at least in part on the identification of the request” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
As per dependent claim 17, dependent claim 17 is a system version of the medium claim 8, having the same scope as that of the above dependent claim 8. Thus, is rejection for the same reason/rationale as that of the above dependent claim 8.
As per dependent claim 9 the combination Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 8 above. Furthermore, Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method further comprising: determine that the client device is authorized for the action [Para. 0058, determine whether a user associated with the device identifier has been previously authenticated, Para. 0066, determine whether a user associated with the device 210 has been previously authenticated. Note this teaches the user or device is authenticated before allowing access/action], wherein the credential is generated at least in part on the client device being authorized for the action [Para. 0061, If, however, the user credentials can be authenticated access module 242 stores this login identifier and Para. 0062, The application 212 a may thus utilize the login identifier in subsequent accesses to content provisioning module 222 to access the application data 228 associated with the application 212 a. This implies the login identifier/credentials is created only after authorization for action is confirmed].
As per dependent claim 10 Graser discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 1 above.
Graser doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation: “wherein the credential is stored within a broker of the computing system”
However, Copsey discloses:
“wherein the credential is stored within a broker of the computing system” [Para. 0061, access module 242 stores this login identifier in association with the device identifier (e.g., associated with computing device 210) …in login tracking data 246. Note: Login identifier /credential is stored in tracking data 242 which is part of proxy system 240 and access module 242 and this meets the limitation the broker. Thus, the credential is stored in the broker’s storage rather than on the client device]
Graser and Copsey are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they all are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, a credential storing mechanism or a feature such as “wherein the credential is stored within a broker of the computing system” as per teaching of Copsey to enhance the security of the system by minimizing exposure to client-side vulnerabilities, maintains central management, and ensures a more robust overall system architecture. [See Copsey, Para. 0061 and at least figure 2, how the credentials are stored in login tracking data figure 2, ref. 246 on the proxy platform shown on figure 2, ref. 240]
As per dependent claim 11 the combination of Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 10 above. Furthermore, Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method, wherein: determine that a validity time for a key used for generation of credentials has expired [Para. 0061, an expiration time may be associated with the login identifier and the device identifier in login tracking data 246, such that when the expiration time has elapsed the associated login identifier and device identifier may be removed from login tracking data 246. Note: the login identifier acts as the key used for subsequent credential based access. Detection that the expiration time “has elapsed” is the determination that a validity time for a key used for generation of credentials has expired] and obtain a new key for generation of credentials from the secured entity [Para. 0059, If there is no login tracking data 246 associated with the device identifier included in the received request, a request for a user credential along with a login identifier to allow access to the content provisioning module 222 is created and returned to the access enabler module 214 a. Para. 0060, “When the user credential is received at proxy system 240 … the user may be authenticated and para. 0061, the associated login identifier…may be removed, (this happens when the expiration time elapses). And para. 0062, the application 212 a … thus utilize the login identifier in subsequent accesses to. Note: This teaches when the login identifier expires (0061), it is removed. Once removed, the next request generates a new request for a user credentials (para. 0059). The secured platform returns a new user credential, which is then processed and generates a new login identifier (para. 00060-0062]
As per dependent claim 15, dependent claim 15 is a system version of the medium claims 2-3, having the same scope as that of the above dependent claims 2-3. Thus, is rejection for the same reason/rationale as that of the above dependent claims 2-3.
As per dependent claim 19, dependent claim 19 is a method version of the medium claims 2-3, having the same scope as that of the above dependent claims 2-3. Thus, is rejection for the same reason/rationale as that of the above dependent claims 2-3.
As per dependent claim 21 the combination of Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 1 above. Furthermore, Copsey discloses the method, wherein the credential is maintained within a trusted environment [Copsey as shown on at least figure 2, para. 48, 51-52, 62 and 87, discloses Proxy system 240, its credential storage and the protected platform side form the operator-controlled access-restricted environment corresponding to the claim trusted environment. Copsey places content platform 220 behind proxy system 240. The proxy is connected to user devices over network 230 and to platform over a second network, such as an internal LAN. The proxy includes an access module that controls access, receives credentials, authenticates user, and allow or denies access. It also teaches storing the user credential at the access device and using the stored credential to access the platform]and wherein the client device is located outside of the trusted environment [Para. 48 and figure 3, computing device 210 that corresponds to the claim limitation client device is on the user facing side of the proxy boundary, while the credential-holding proxy and platform are on the protected inter side. This distinguishes computing device 210 form proxy system 240 and platform 220. Computing device 210 communicates with proxy system 240 over network 230, while platform 220 may be located behind the proxy and connected to the proxy through a separate internal LAN.]
As per dependent claim 22, dependent claim 22 is a system version of the medium claims 21, having the same scope as that of the above dependent claims 21. Thus, is rejection for the same reason/rationale as that of the above dependent claims 21.
10. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser et al. (Graser) (US Patent Publication No. 2008/0276308-A1, Pub. Date: Nov 6, 2008) in view of Simon Dominic Copsey (herein after referred as Copsey) (US Publication No. 2015/0012990 A1; Pub. Date: Jan 8, 2015) and further in view of NPL document titled, “What Are Refresh Tokens and How to Use Them Securely” (Learn about refresh tokens and how they help developers balance security and usability in their applications). By Dan Arias and Sam Bellen (herein after referred as Arias) (October 7, 2021)
As per dependent claim 12 the combination of Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 11 above. Furthermore, Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method, wherein to obtain the new key includes to: transmit a new request aPara. 0023, 0061 and 0059, an expiration time may be associated with the stored device identifier and login identifier when the user is initially authenticated such that the login identifier and device identifier may be removed or otherwise invalidated after the expiration of this time. By removing the login identifier and device identifier the user is required to be re-authenticated when an application is next accessed and para. 0059, Para. 0059, a request for a user credential along with a login identifier to allow access to the content provisioning module 222 is created and returned”. Note: when the expiration time is elapsed para. 0061, the login identifier is removed. Once the login identifier is removed, the next access attempt triggers a request for a new user credential/para. 0059, a new request is automatically triggered and that request is made only after detecting expiration; it is directed to the secured entity (content provisioning platform/access module 242)]; identify the new key received from the secured entity [Para. 0060, When the user credential is received at proxy system 240 … the user may be authenticated and para. 0061, access module 242 stores this login identifier in association with the device identifier, Note: This means after the user credential is submitted (triggered by expiration) the platform (secured entity) returns a new identifier associated with the device identifier and this means the system: receives the new identifier/the new key and identifies and process it as the new credential for that device]; and store the new key [Para. 0061, access module 242 stores this login identifier in association with the device identifier. This means once the new login identifier is generated by the secured platform and returned, access module 242 stores it in login tracking data 246 associated with the device identifier. This matches to the claim limitation storing new key]
Graser and Copsey doesn’t explicitly disclose the following underlined claim limitation: “transmit a key refresh request to the secured entity based at least in part on the determination that the validity time has expired”
However, Arias discloses “transmit a key refresh request to the secured entity based at least in part on the determination that the validity time has expired” [See under the title “what is a Refresh Token”…for security purposes, access tokens may be valid for a short amount of time. Once they expire, client applications can use a refresh token to "refresh" the access token. That is, a refresh token is a credential artifact that lets a client application get new access tokens without having to ask the user to log in again.
Graser, Copsey and Arias are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they all are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser and Copsey, a Key refresh mechanism such as “a key refresh request to the secured entity based at least in part on the determination that the validity time has expired” as per teaching of Arias to enhance the security of the system by helping developers balance security and usability in their applications. [See Arias, “Learn about refresh tokens and how they help developers balance security and usability in their applications”]
As per dependent claim 13 the combination of Graser and Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method as applied to claim 12 above. Furthermore, Copsey discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium/system/method, wherein the new [Para. 0058, “The request to access the application 212 a including the device identifier is received from the computing device 210 at proxy system 240” Para. 0059, “If there is no login tracking data 246 associated with the device identifier included in the received request” and 0061,” when the expiration time has elapsed the associated login identifier and device identifier may be removed from login tracking data 246.” Note: the request contains the device identifier (Para. 0058) this meets the value of the key. When the request arrives, the system checks the login tracking data associated with that device ID/Para. 0059. If the credential expired, the login identifier has been removed. Para. 0061. Therefore, the absence of a login identifier for that device ID servers as the “indication that the validity time has expired” In other words, the new request includes the device identifier; the system checks login tracing data for that identifier, the combination of request+ missing login ID= expiration indication] or a value of the key [Para. 0058, “including a device identifier…”, Note: the device identifier functions as the key value since it uniquely identifies the client device and it is used to look up the login identifier and it is also used in the refresh request. This meets the limitation the request includes “a value of the key”]
Graser and Copsey doesn’t explicitly disclose the following underlined claim limitation: “the key refresh request includes an indication that the validity time has expired”
However, Arias discloses “the key refresh request includes an indication that the validity time has expired [See under the title “what is a Refresh Token”…for security purposes, access tokens may be valid for a short amount of time. Once they expire, client applications can use a refresh token to "refresh" the access token. That is, a refresh token is a credential artifact that lets a client application get new access tokens without having to ask the user to log in again.
Graser, Copsey and Arias are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as they all are directed to controlling access to a secure storage devices by using credential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the system of Graser, and Copsey a Key refresh mechanism such as “the key refresh request includes an indication that the validity time has expired” as per teaching of Arias to enhance the security of the system by helping developers balance security and usability in their applications. [See Arias, “Learn about refresh tokens and how they help developers balance security and usability in their applications”]
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. US Publication No. 20150007291 A1 Miller discloses an authentication engine may be configured to receive an authentication request and credentials from a client. The authentication engine may then generate a proxy agent configured to interact with an identity provider to authenticate the client on behalf of the client, using the credentials. In this way, the authentication engine may receive an assertion of authentication of the client from the identity provider, by way of the proxy agent.
B. US Publication No. 20150304292 A1 Dulkin et al discloses a system and method for secure authentication facilitates improving the security of authentication between a client and a target by using an innovative authentication module on a proxy. The client can connect to the proxy using a native protocol and provides client credentials to the proxy. The proxy uses an authentication module to authenticate the client and then to provide target access credentials for proxy-target authentication, thereby giving the client access to the target through the proxy. The invention facilitates connection between the client and the target without requiring the client to be in possession of the target access credentials. The proxy can optionally be connected to a privileged, access management system which can provide and/or store target access credentials. Proxy-provided target access credentials facilitate preventing a client security breech from exposing target access credentials.
C. US Publication No. 20160234209 A1 Kahol et al discloses a proxy server mitigates security risks of user credentials sent across a network in clear text. The proxy server encrypts user credentials within a client application request destined for an application server. The proxy server forwards the client application request to the application server. The application server sends the encrypted user credentials to the proxy server where the proxy server decrypts the user credentials and authenticates the user credentials with an authentication server.
D. See the other cited prior arts.
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SAMSON B LEMMA whose telephone number is 571-272-3806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-10pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shaw Yin Chen can be reached on to 571-272-8878. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMSON B LEMMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights