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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARSICO (US 2016/0203352) in view of PARIMI et al (US 2024/0323692).
Per claim 1, MARSICO teaches a method comprising:
scanning, by a user equipment (UE), a first scannable code (paras 0066, 0080, 0098, 0113, 0116, 0130—scanning codes such as a QR code by a user mobile device);
extracting, by the UE, an internet protocol (IP) address of a verification website and an interaction identifier (ID) from the first scannable code (paras 0040-44, 0055, 0062, 0080, 0099, 0130—extracting IP address information of server provider from the QR code for verification of application server ID information);
using the extracted IP address of the verification website, transmitting, by the UE, to the verification website, the interaction ID and a reported IP address of the UE (paras 0116, 0130, 0136-137, 0152—using the extracted IP address to transmit URL, user identifying information, credentials and transaction record);
extracting, by the verification website, from the interaction ID, a session ID, a reported UE identification, and a first time indicator (paras 0039-40, 0116, 0130, 0136-137, 0152-153, 0156-157—using the extracted IP address to transmit URL, user identifying information and credentials, extracting reward ID and expiration information);
using the first time indicator, determining that the session ID is not expired (paras 0057, 0066, 0068, 0093, 0108—determining that redemption request has not expired and that the scan code is nearing expiration).
MARSICO teaches the limitations, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the limitations “based on at least determining that the session ID is not expired, determining that the reported IP address of the UE matches a stored IP address within a first subscriber identity module (SIM), wherein determining that the reported IP address of the UE matches the stored IP address within the first SIM comprises: using the reported UE identification and an association, within a SIM address list, between a stored UE identification and the stored IP address within the first SIM, to identify the stored IP address within the first SIM; based on at least determining that the reported IP address of the UE does match the stored IP address within the first SIM, generating a verification ID comprising the session ID, the reported UE identification, a verification confirmation, and a second time indicator; and transmitting, by the verification website, to the UE, using the reported IP address of the UE, the verification ID”.
However, PARIMI et al teach determining that the mobile ID associated with the mobile device is activated on the SIM (paras 0018-19, 0047-49, 0053-55, 0060) and a device history database that matches and stores registered mobile ID, including mobile device IDs and SIM cards on which the registered mobile ID has been activated along with verification of the mobile device (paras 0019, 0029-30, 0037, 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of MARSICO with PARIMI et al to allow for provisioning SIMs associated with addresses and identifications of the mobile device, which is well-known in the art for instantiating SIMs that are associated with the IP address and identifying information of mobile device.
Claims 8 and 15 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, MARSICO and PARIMI et al teach the method of claim 1, MARSICO further teaches the method further comprising: extracting, by the UE, from the verification ID, the session ID, the reported UE identification, the verification confirmation, and the second time indicator; embedding, by the UE, into a second scannable code, the session ID, the reported UE identification, the verification confirmation, and the second time indicator; displaying, by the UE, the second scannable code; scanning, by a terminal, the second scannable code; extracting the session ID, the reported UE identification, the verification confirmation, and the second time indicator; using the second time indicator, determining whether the verification confirmation is expired; and either: based on at least determining that the verification confirmation is not expired, displaying, by the terminal, a verification success message indicating that the UE passed a SIM verification; or based on at least determining that the verification confirmation is expired, displaying, by the terminal, a verification failure message (paras 0008, 0057, 00620097-98, 0103, 0106, 0112—scanning a second code to extract user identifying information, second address location, second timestamp/time metric and queue value, expiration and determining that redemption request has not expired and that the scan code is nearing expiration; PARIMI et al: paras 0036-39, 0045-49, 0051-54, 0057—verification and authentication notification information, session ID and SIM, determining authentication fails and the mobile IDs do not match).
Claims 9 and 16 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, MARSICO and PARIMI et al teach the method of claim 2, PARIMI et al further teach the method further comprising: either: using the first time indicator, determining whether the session ID is expired; and based on at least determining that the session ID is expired: transmitting, by the verification website, to the UE, using the reported IP address of the UE, a first no verification message; and displaying, by the UE, the first no verification message; or determining whether the reported IP address of the UE matches the stored IP address within the first SIM; and based on at least determining that the reported IP address of the UE does not match the stored IP address within the first SIM: transmitting, by the verification website, to the UE, using the reported IP address of the UE, a second no verification message; and displaying, by the UE, the second no verification message (paras 0042, 0045, 0048, 0051-54, 0064—determining if the session ID matches the decrypted data and authentication message to permit user, authentication platform recognizes the IP address ownership).
Claims 10 and 17 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, MARSICO and PARIMI et al teach the method of claim 1, PARIMI et al further teach the method further comprising: storing, in each SIM of a plurality of SIMs, a stored IP address, the plurality of SIMs including the first SIM, wherein each stored IP address is unique; and generating the SIM address list associating, for each SIM of the plurality of SIMs, the stored IP address within the SIM with a stored UE identification, wherein the stored UE identification comprises a phone number, and wherein the reported UE identification comprises a phone number (paras 0003, 0018-19, 0026, 0045-49, 0053-55, 0060—determining that the mobile ID associated with the mobile device is activated on the SIM and a device history database that matches and stores registered mobile ID, including mobile device IDs, phone number and SIMs).
Claims 11 and 18 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, MARSICO and PARIMI et al teach the method of claim 1, PARIMI et al further teach the method further comprising: receiving, by a terminal, the reported UE identification of the UE, the UE purportedly containing the first SIM; generating, by the terminal, the interaction ID comprising the session ID, the reported UE identification, and the first time indicator; embedding the IP address of the verification website and the interaction ID into the first scannable code; and displaying, on the terminal, the first scannable code (Abstract, paras 0018-20, 0029, 0036-38, 0045, 0048-53, 0067—first SIM, mobile ID that encodes URL, session ID, user identification, dates, IP address and verification/authentication landing page, first scannable code and display).
Claims 12 and 19 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, MARSICO and PARIMI et al teach the method of claim 5, PARIMI et al further teach the method further comprising: transmitting an encryption key to the terminal; encrypting the interaction ID using the encryption key, wherein embedding the encrypted interaction ID into the first scannable code comprises embedding the encrypted interaction ID into the first scannable code; and decrypting, by the verification website, the interaction ID (paras 0003, 0032, 0050-52, 0066-67—including encrypted data, cryptographic key and decryption data to verify the session ID and authenticating users of the websites; MARSICO: paras 0027, 0044, 0080, 0099, 0130—encryption of data extracted from the scanned code, decryption key information).
Claims 13 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, MARSICO and PARIMI et al teach the method of claim 1, PARIMI et al further teach the method further comprising: requesting, by the verification website, user authentication from the UE; receiving user authentication by the UE; and transmitting, by the UE, to the verification website, the user authentication, wherein determining whether the reported IP address of the UE matches the stored IP address within the first SIM is further based on at least the verification website receiving user authentication from the UE (Abstract, paras 0005, 0018-20, 0042, 0045-46, 0062, 0064—request to authenticate the customer, determining mobile ID matching address associated with SIM).
Conclusion
III. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
WO 2020/220840; US 2014/0112551; US 2015/0172288.
IV. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453