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 .
Acknowledgements
The reply filed 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 12-13 have been amended. Claims 3 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, filed 10/28/2025, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection set forth in Non-Final Rejection 07/28/2025. Furthermore, claims 3 and 11 have been canceled, therefore rendering the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 3 and 11 moot. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 9, filed 10/28/2025, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in Non-Final Rejection 07/28/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“In rejecting Claim 1, the Office relies on Valenti to disclose receiving a request to
provision a biometric for biometric transactions to a payment account. See, Office action dated July 28, 2025, p. 7, citing ¶0025. As amended, Claim 1 specifically recites a request to provision a biometric for biometric-initiated transactions, or transactions which are transactions specifically initiated with a biometric, and not any transaction which relies on a biometric (e.g., for authentication or otherwise).
In ¶0025, as cited, Valenti discloses a biometric registration for enhanced authentication processes for accessing a secure network. There is no indication, however, of a biometric-initiated transaction. For example, at ¶0027, Valenti makes clear that the user selects a payment method, and then the BASC is active to perform a biometric authentication on the user, via the mobile device 120. Mere biometric authentication is not what is claimed. There is no indication that the registration process in ¶0025 is actually at all related to a request to provision any biometric specifically for biometric-initiated transactions. Valenti is deficient.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, Valenti et al. U.S. 2019/0149541 (herein as “Valenti”) discloses in [0013] – “to provide an issuer-authenticated association between a consumer and a particular merchant so that future transactions between the consumer and merchant can be performed using biometric authentication,” [0015] – “the consumer can perform a transaction facilitated by the secure network using biometric authentication,” “The user can then perform an authenticated payment transaction with the Uber app using biometrics, e.g., a fingerprint or selfie.” Therefore, Valenti does suggest the transaction is biometric-initiated because the registration and authentication process disclosed by Valenti is for future transactions using biometric authentication. A transaction that uses biometric authentication is analogous to a biometric-initiated transaction since it is the biometrics that is being used to initiate an authentication process for the transaction.
“The Office relies on Valenti to disclose the validating step. See, Office action dated July 28, 2025, p. 7, citing Claim 1. There is no teaching or suggestion that any value is specifically validated by or through or with a payment network, as is now recited in Claim 1. Valenti is deficient.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, Valenti discloses in [0021] – “Payment transactions made using the secure network 110 (e.g., payment network) may rely on a system of one or more access control servers (ACS) 180 to confirm authentication of the identity of the consumer when the secure network 110 requires an enhanced level of authentication, such as in the client/user registration process discussed in further detail below,” “The ACS…returns the enhanced authentication result to the provider.” The secure network collectively with the ACS is analogous to the payment network. Therefore, Valenti discloses that the non-biometric information is validated with a payment network and receiving, from the payment network, a verification result.
“The Office further relies on Valenti to disclosing transmitting a request to enable
biometric transactions for an account. See, Office action dated July 28, 2025, at p. 9, citing ¶0025. As cited, Valenti merely discloses a registration process for enhanced authentication. The Office then contends that the call for enhanced authentication is the same as enabling biometric transactions for an account. It is not. There is no suggestion or indication that the account in Valenti is at all enabled for biometric transactions, whereby a biometric is presented in lieu of a card, for example. This is not the same as or even related to enhanced authentication. Valenti is deficient.
As such, Valenti is deficient as to the receiving of the specific request in Claim 1.
Further, the Office does not rely on Srivastava or Golwalker for the above limitations, whereby the suggested combination is also deficient.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, initiating a call for enhanced authentication in Valenti [0025] is analogous to transmitting a request to enable biometric transactions for an account because such call, or request, is one of the initial steps of the biometric registration process, which results in a confirmed biometric registration, see Fig. 3 of Valenti, i.e. enabled biometric-initiated transactions for an account. The sign-up request as illustrated in Fig. 3, 305, is analogous to the receiving of the specific request.
“The Office then relies on Golwalker to disclose trusted devices and supported features. Biometric authentication is one supported feature. Importantly, there is no indication that any of the trusted devices is supported from biometric-initiated transactions. The mere fact that a trusted device supports or does not support biometric authentication is irrelevant to what is claimed. The fact that the user is permitted to sign-in to the device may suggest there is an account, but does not mean that that account specifically supports or does not support any functionality. The user, for example, may be permitted to sign in to that same account at a different device having different supported features - the account is agnostic to the supported features of the device. As combined, then, there is no specific checking as to whether an account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions. The suggested combination is deficient.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claimed invention does not preclude the interpretation that a payment account is or can be associated with a device. Golwalkar et al. U.S. Patent 9,614,828 (herein as “Golwalkar”) discloses in Col. 6, lines 27-28 – “The user account data 221 may include a list of trusted devices that a user may use in order to authenticate” and lines 31-33 – “may be determined that a user has a certain device that supports biometric authentication.” The claimed invention reads “checking…whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions.” The user account of Golwalkar is analogous to the payment account of the claimed invention. Therefore, the determining that a user has a device that supports biometric authentication from a list included in the user account data is analogous to checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions because determining that the user account data contains a list of supported devices means the user account does support biometric-initiated transactions just by mere fact that the user account is associated with the trusted, supported devices. In other words, since the user account has trusted devices that support biometric authentication, one can conclude that the user account itself also supports biometric authentication because the user account is associated with the supported devices.
“What's more, the combination is improper. As cited, Valenti discloses an authentication of a user, via a challenge at a mobile device. The Office then argues that it would be obvious to determine what authentication feature a device supports. Again, the claim limitation relates to what the "account" is supported for, not the device. That said, Valenti discloses authentication through a password or PIN. There is absolutely no need to assess the capabilities of the mobile device in order for the user to enter a PIN or password. What's more, the motivation of providing alternative authentication when one is not supported is also not relevant. See, Office action dated July 28 2025, at p.12. What about a PIN or password authentication of the user would not be supported? The combination would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art, as Valenti discloses a complete solution, and the advent of Golwalker creates unnecessary complexities and issues, to resolve no apparent problem. The combination is not supported by proper motivation, and therefore, is improper.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claim limitation and interpretation related to what the “account” supports has been addressed above. Furthermore, Valenti is modified to include determining whether a user account supports biometric-initiated transactions. The motivation to provide an alternative authentication method when another method is not supported is relevant because modifying Valenti to include checking whether a user account supports biometric-initiated transactions would improve user experience by enabling alternative authentication methods when another method is not available. The remarks suggest that the combination “creates unnecessary complexities and issues to resolve no apparently problem” without providing any evidence as to what the “complexities and issues” may be. Furthermore, the remarks appear to be conflating authenticating a user through a password or PIN with assessing features of a user account and deeming such blend to be improper, when in fact, these features can reasonably exist as distinct features within a combination. The combination of Valenti in view of Golwalker is capable of both checking whether a user is authenticated and checking whether the user account supports biometric-initiated transactions. These two features can reasonably co-exist.
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, 4-5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valenti et al. U.S. 2019/0149541 (herein as “Valenti”) in view of Srivastava et al. U.S. 2017/0308895 (herein as “Srivastava”), and further in view of Golwalkar et al. U.S. Patent 9,614,828 (herein as “Golwalker”).
Re Claim 1, Valenti discloses a computer-implemented method for enabling use of an account in biometric-initiated transactions, the method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a request to provision a biometric for biometric-initiated transactions to a payment account of a user [0013] – “to provide an issuer-authenticated association between a consumer and a particular merchant so that future transactions between the consumer and merchant can be performed using biometric authentication,”, the request to provision the biometric for biometric-initiated transactions including non-biometric authentication credentials [0025] – “the client app 240…issues a sign-up request (305) to the biometric authentication/registration software component (BASC) 250, which initiates an authentication/registration process (310) through the provider/merchant 130. The provider/merchant 130 initiates a call for enhanced authentication (315) to the ACS of the merchant in the ACS system 180, which in turn, communicates with the ACS of the issuer,” BASC and ACS 180 are analogous to at least a part of the computing device, “The user provides the requested authentication credentials (325),” Claim 1 – “transmitting…non-biometric authentication credentials of the user to initiate a determination of validity of the non-biometric authentication credentials”;
checking, by the computing device, with an issuer of the payment account, whether the user is authenticated [0025] – “the merchant in the ACS system 180…communicates with the ACS of the issuer (i.e. issuer of the payment account)…The ACS of the issuer, in the ACS system 180, interacts with mobile device 120 of the user to challenge a consumer (320), i.e., to request additional authentication information via the user interface…Upon receiving authentication credentials, the ACS of the issuer indicates to the merchant ACS that the user has been authenticated,” thereby suggesting the ACS “checked” whether the user is authenticated;
validating, by the computing device, the non-biometric authentication credentials with a payment network Claim 1 – “based upon the determination of the validity of the non-biometric authentication credentials,” thereby suggesting the non-biometric authentication credentials is validated, [0021] – “Payment transactions made using the secure network 110 (e.g., payment network) may rely on a system of one or more access control servers (ACS) 180 to confirm authentication of the identity of the consumer,” the secure network collectively with the ACS is analogous to the payment network;
receiving, from the issuer, by the computing device, an eligibility code for the payment account for biometric-initiated transactions [0025] – “the ACS of the issuer indicates to the merchant ACS that the user has been authenticated,” the indication is analogous to an eligibility code because it indicates if the payment account, or user, is eligible to proceed forward with the biometric registration process, see Fig. 3, [0024] – “stores information regarding the user’s payment accounts,” [0027] – “payment account information for the user,” thereby suggesting the payment account is associated with the user, therefore, eligibility that applies to the user will also reasonably apply to the payment account associated with the user;
based on validation of the non-biometric authentication credentials, receiving, from the payment network, by the computing device, a verification result for the non-biometric authentication credentials Claim 1 – “receiving an authentication token, via the communication network, based upon the determination of the validity of the non-biometric authentication credentials,” [0025] – “The provider/merchant 130 returns the AAV to the BASC (335),” the AAV is generated and sent based upon the user being authenticated, therefore, the AAV, or authentication token, is analogous to a verification result;
requesting, by the computing device, a biometric from the user, via a biometric reader Fig. 3, 345, [0026] – “The BASC initiates the entry of biometric information by the user (345)”;
in response to the requesting of the biometric from the user, receiving, by the computing device, from the user, biometric data indicative of a biometric of the user [0026] – “The BASC initiates the entry of biometric information by the user (345) via the user interface and biometric hardware (e.g., sensors) of the mobile device 120…The BASC initiates biometric registration (350) by the ID server 170…The biometric registration includes a step in which the ID server 170 receives from the mobile device 120 a form of the biometric information entered by the user,” ID server is analogous to at least a part of the computing device;
storing, by the computing device, the biometric data in a memory [0026] – “stores the received biometric data in association with the user”;
transmitting, by the computing device, to the issuer, a request to enable biometric-initiated transactions for the payment account, […] [0025] – “The provider/merchant 130 initiates a call for enhanced authentication (315) to the ACS of the merchant in the ACS system 180 which, in turn, communicates with the ACS of the issuer,” the call for enhanced authentication is analogous to a request to enable biometric transactions; and
based on a response from the issuer, notifying, by the computing device, the user that the payment account is enabled for biometric-initiated transactions [0026] – “The BASC returns a confirmation of registration (360) to the client/merchant app on the user’s mobile device…the registration process allows for a biometric authentication process to be performed for subsequent transactions between the user and the merchant,” [0025] – the ACS of the issuer indicates to the merchant ACS that the user has been authenticated (i.e. based on a response from the issuer).”
Examiner notes that the limitations italicized above are not limitations in the original claims, rather, are denoted to make clear what the prior teaches and what it does not.
However, Valenti does not expressly disclose
the non-biometric authentication credentials is a cryptogram associated with a transaction to said payment account,
the request to enable biometric-initiated transactions including an identifier of said payment account and the verification result.
Srivastava discloses a method for generation of an application cryptogram for use in a payment transaction. Specifically, Srivastava discloses
the non-biometric authentication credentials is a cryptogram associated with a transaction to said payment account [0027] – “generation of application cryptograms thereby for use in a payment transaction,” [0033] – “initiate the generation of an application cryptogram and other data that comprises the payment credentials via the associated transaction account (i.e. payment account).”
the request to enable biometric-initiated transactions including an identifier of said payment account and the verification result [0042] – “the transaction message and validation result may be electronically transmitted to the issuing institution 106,” [0061] – “Transaction messages may be formatted pursuant to one or more standards…and include a message type indicator and a plurality of data elements, such as data elements configured to store application cryptograms and other payment credentials related to a transaction account used to fund the payment transaction,” [0068] – “a primary account number included in the transaction message.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valenti’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of validating application cryptograms and transmitting the request including an identifier of said payment account and the verification result to the issuing institution in Srivastava. One would be motivated to make this combination because it provides for additional convenience to users and the ability for alternative user verification methods Srivastava, [0027], and it also enables a quick and efficient way to process and fund the payment transaction Srivastava, [0109].
However, Valenti in view of Srivastava do not explicitly teach
checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions.
Golwalkar discloses a native authentication experience with failover. Specifically, Golwalkar discloses
checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions Col. 6, lines 28-36 – “The list may indicate authentication features supported, local communication channels 213 that are supported, etc. for the specific devices. For example, it may be determined that a user has a certain device that supports biometric authentication. The authentication service 218 may use this information in order to require users to use the certain device with the biometric authentication feature to complete authentication,” Col. 2, lines 43-46 – “To begin, a user at a particular device…seeks to sign-in (or authenticate) to an account,” therefore, the device is associated with an account,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valenti in view of Srivastava’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of determining whether a user account supports in Golwalkar. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide alternative authentication methods when one is not supported, thereby improving user experience Golwalkar, Col. 2, lines 12-14.
Re Claim 4, Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar the computer-implement method of claim 1, and Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar further teach wherein validating the cryptogram includes initiating, to the payment network, an authorization message including the cryptogram in a data element of the authorization message Srivastava, [0079] – “In step 508…The payment credentials, including the application cryptogram, may be included in a transaction message (i.e. authorization message) that is electronically transmitted to the payment network 112 by the merchant 110,” [0080] – “In step 514, the verification module 318 of the processing server 104 may validate the application cryptogram included in the transaction message.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Valenti’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of initiating, to the payment network, an authorization message including the cryptogram in a data element of the authorization message in Srivastava. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide less inconvenience for the user and enable the ability for alternative user verification and authentication methods Srivastava, [0004].
Re Claim 5, Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Valenti further teach wherein the computing device includes a backend server and a token service provider (TSP) computing device; and Valenti, [0021] – “Payment transactions made using the secure network 110 (e.g., payment network) may rely on a system of one or more access control servers (i.e. backend server),” [0025] – “The merchant ACS of the ACS system 180 generates a token (i.e. token service provider).”
However, Valenti does not expressly disclose
wherein checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions includes checking, by the TSP computing device, whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions.
Golwalkar discloses a native authentication experience with failover. Specifically, Golwalkar discloses
wherein checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions includes checking, by the TSP computing device, whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions Golwalkar, Col. 6, lines 31-36 – “For example, it may be determined that a user has a certain device that supports biometric authentication service 218 may use this information in order to require users to use the certain device with the biometric authentication feature to complete authentication,” authentication service 218 is analogous to the token service provider.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valenti in view of Srivastava’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of determining whether a user account supports in Golwalkar. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide alternative authentication methods when one is not supported, thereby improving user experience Golwalkar, Col. 2, lines 12-14.
Claims 9 and 12 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims of method claims 1 and 4, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1 and 4. Furthermore, Valenti discloses embodying program code stored on one or more computer-readable non-transitory media for the disclosed systems and processes [0034]. Valenti also discloses the apparatus 500 includes processor 510 to perform any of the functions described, and apparatus 500 may comprise an implementation of one or more elements of system 100 Fig. 5, [0028-29]. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valenti et al. U.S. 2019/0149541 (herein as “Valenti”) in view of Srivastava et al. U.S. 2017/0308895 (herein as “Srivastava”), and further in view of Golwalkar et al. U.S. Patent 9,614,828 (herein as “Golwalker”) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Rutherford et al. U.S. 2018/0211236 (herein as “Rutherford”).
Re Claim 2, Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however, Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar do not explicitly teach wherein checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions includes submitting an account number for the payment account to the issuer.
Rutherford discloses method and system for authentication via a trusted execution environment. Specifically, Rutherford discloses
wherein checking whether the payment account is supported for biometric-initiated transactions includes submitting an account number for the payment account to the issuer [0032] – “the computing device 102 may electronically transmit the primary account number (e.g., encrypted) to the issuing institution 106 without the authentication data.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of submitting an account number to the issuer in Rutherford. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is, submitting an account number to the issuer for checking whether the account supports biometric transactions. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Claim 10 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 2. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valenti et al. U.S. 2019/0149541 (herein as “Valenti”) in view of Srivastava et al. U.S. 2017/0308895 (herein as “Srivastava”), and further in view of Golwalkar et al. U.S. Patent 9,614,828 (herein as “Golwalker”) as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Dorogusker U.S. Patent 9,519,901.
Re Claim 6, Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, however, Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar do not explicitly teach further comprising:
provisioning, by the TSP computing device, a token for the payment account for use in biometric-initiated transactions; and
associating the token with the stored biometric data for the user.
Dorogusker discloses a biometric payment technology. Specifically, Dorogusker discloses
provisioning, by the TSP computing device, a token for the payment account for use in biometric-initiated transactions Col. 4, lines 27-30 – “for example, by adding a token to the received fingerprint. Examples of token include, for example, a security key, one-time password, or other dynamically generated token”; and
associating the token with the stored biometric data for the user Col. 4, lines 33-35 – “The mobile device uploads the card information (tokenized, for example) and connects the fingerprint with the card information.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valenti in view of Srivastava and Golwalkar’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of provisioning and associating the token with biometric data in Dorogusker. The combination teaches enabling a user to use biometric authentication methods for payment. One would be motivated to make this combination because requiring a user’s biometrics for authentication reduces the risk of fraudulent transactions Dorogusker, Col. 3, lines 1-11.
Claims 13 and 15 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims of method claims 6 and 5, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 5-6. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 14, Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, and Dorogusker teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, and Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, and Dorogusker further teach wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the processors, further cause the processors to:
receive one or more sets of session keys for the token Srivastava, [0027] – “provisioning of session keys to a computing device for use in the generation of application cryptograms thereby for use in a payment transaction,”; and
store the one or more sets of session keys for the token in the memory Srivastava, [0035] – “The computing device 102 may receive the encrypted session key and the server encryption key and may store them in the computing device 102.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valenti in view of Golwalkar and Dorogusker’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of session keys in Srivastava. One would be motivated to make this combination because it provides for additional convenience to users and the ability for alternative user verification methods Srivastava, [0027], and it also enables a quick and efficient way to process and fund the payment transaction Srivastava, [0109].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valenti et al. U.S. 2019/0149541 (herein as “Valenti”) in view of Srivastava et al. U.S. 2017/0308895 (herein as “Srivastava”), in view of Golwalkar et al. U.S. Patent 9,614,828 (herein as “Golwalker”), and further in view of Dorogusker U.S. Patent 9,519,901 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Law et al. U.S. 2018/0285875 (herein as “Law”).
Re Claim 7, Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, and Dorogusker teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6, however, Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, and Dorogusker do not explicitly teach further comprising suspending, by the issuer, the token based on an authorization request for the transaction to the payment account.
Law discloses a token for representing dynamic real credentials. Specifically, Law discloses
suspending, by the issuer, the token based on an authorization request for the transaction to the payment account [0082] – “a token requestor entity may provide a token requestor ID, a token number, a life-cycle operation identifier and one or more token attributes to token server 500 to perform the requested life-cycle operation on a given token…Examples of life-cycle operation may include a token activation operation to…suspend a token.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, and Dorogusker’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of suspending a token in Law. One would be motivated to make this combination to reduce the risk of interception and misuse of real credentials Law, [0003].
Re Claim 8, Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, Dorogusker, and Law the computer-implemented method of claim 7, and Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, Dorogusker, and Law further teach further comprising un-suspending, by the issuer, the token based on an identity check and verification of the user Law, [0069] – “The authentication procedures may include, for example, verification of the authenticity of the selected real credential, verification of the authenticity of the second device, and/or verification of the authenticity of the user of the second device requesting activation of the token,” [0082] – “Examples of life-cycle operation may include a token activation operation to activate an inactive, suspended, or temporarily locked token (i.e. un-suspend).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Valenti in view of Srivastava, Golwalkar, and Dorogusker’s biometric registration and authentication system and method with the teachings of unsuspending a token based on user verification/authentication in Law. One would be motivated to make this combination to reduce the risk of fraud and the risk of interception and misuse of real credentials Law, [0003].
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 CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698