DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Kumar et al. US-20190386981).
a. Referring to claim 1, 10 and 19:
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 19, Kumar teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining a two-dimensional code (Para 37… QR code); obtaining, from the two-dimensional code, a key for enabling Time-based One-time Password (TOTP) and a first signature, wherein the first signature is generated by an authentication server based on the key and a first private key in a first public-private key pair (Para 6, 49 and 50….QR code having secret and signature which is obtained by scanning the code); verifying the first signature based on a first public key in the first public-private key pair (Para 6 and 7… verifying the signature); in response to determining the first signature is successfully verified, performing token calculation based on the key to generate a first token (Para 6 and 7… using the key to generate TOTPs); and sending the first token to a user (Para 7… sending TOTP to the user).
a. Referring to claim 3 and 12:
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Kumar teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the first signature is verified by a first trusted application (TA) of a terminal device, and wherein the token calculation is performed by a second TA of the terminal device (Para 6, 7, 49 and 50… signature verification and TOTP calculation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2, 11 and 20 recite the limitation of sending an enabling confirmation request to the authentication server, wherein the enabling confirmation request comprises the second signature.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the limitation of sending an identity verification request comprising the first token to the application server; and receiving an identity verification result from the application server.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 recite the limitation of sending the key and the first signature to the web end; receiving, from the web end, an identity verification request comprising the first token.
Claim 7, 8, 16 and 17 recite the limitation of receiving, from an application, an enabling confirmation request comprising a second signature.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the limitation of in response to determining that the security level of the terminal device satisfies a requirement for enabling TOTP, querying the second public key in the second public-private key pair based on the device model.
The prior art fails to teach the unique limitations shown above and recited in the claims of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
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, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights