DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/811,983 filed on 08/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO foreign priority claimed at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/22/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 08/22/2024 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the drawings filed on 08/22/2024 has been accepted.
Specification
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant's specification filed on 08/22/2024 has been accepted.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Hereinafter Chen), Pub. No.: US 2020/0356659 in view of Ramezan et al., (Hereinafter Ramezan), Pub. No.: US 2024/0171402.
Referring to claim 1, Chen teaches a method comprising: receiving, by an account service, an ID token (i.e., Identity Token in para. 0086) in response to an authentication request made to an authentication provider to authenticate a user with an account with the authentication provider, the ID token including an identifier of the account with the authentication provider and nonce data, the nonce data including at least a public key for an anonymous user account ID (i.e., public key in para. 0005) for an anonymous user account ID (para. 0005; public key; para. 0086 and fig. 1, ID Token; para. 0060 (identity proofing), paras. 0077-0078).
Chen does not explicitly disclose transacting, by the account service with a third-party service the transacting including a message with transaction details, the message including a signature signed using the public key in the nonce data.
However, in an analogous art, Ramezan discloses transacting, by the account service with a third-party service the transacting including a message with transaction details, the message including a signature signed using the public key in the nonce data (paras. 0057; 0071- 0113 and figs. 5a-5c; an authentication management between prover 1010 and verifier 1030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) OR before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Chen with the method and system of Ramezan, wherein transacting, by the account service with a third-party service the transacting including a message with transaction details, the message including a signature signed using the public key in the nonce data to provide users with a means for authentication methods in communication networks and, in particular, to authentication methods using zeroknowledge proof algorithms for user equipments and to nodes implementing the authentication methods (Ramezan: para. 0002).
Referring to claim 2, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 1. Ramezan teaches further comprising: deriving, by the account service, the anonymous user account ID from a cryptographic combination of the identifier of the account with the authentication provider that is included in the ID token and a user code (Ramezan: abstract, paras. 0071-0113 and figs. 5a-5c).
Referring to claim 3, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 2. Ramezan further teaches wherein the deriving of the anonymous user account ID further utilizes an issuer identifier from the ID token which identifies the authentication provider, whereby the anonymous user account ID is linked to the authentication provider (Ramezan: paras. 0071-0113 and figs. 5a-5c the service account credential of the prover 1010 may
comprises an email address or a login name used by a user of the prover 1010 to access
the service provider).
Referring to claim 4, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 2. Ramezan further teaches wherein the deriving of the anonymous user account ID further utilizes multiple authentication provider identifiers, multiple identifiers of the user account, or multiple account service identifiers (Ramezan: paras. 0071-0113 and figs. 5a-5c).
Referring to claim 5, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 2. Ramezan further teaches wherein the cryptographic combination of the identifier of the account with the authentication provider that is included in the ID token and a user is performed before a generation of a zero-knowledge proof that is provided to the third-party service to verify that the user corresponding to the anonymous user account ID was authenticated by the authentication provider (abstract; paras. 0015-0017, authentication procedure).
Referring to claim 6, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 1. Ramezan further teaches wherein the nonce data includes random data (Ramezan: paras. 0071-0113 and figs. 5a-5c, randomly selected data).
Referring to claim 7, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 1. Ramezan further teaches wherein the public key is an ephemeral public key tied to a key expiration listed in the nonce data (Ramezan: paras. 0071-0113 and figs. 5a-5c).
Referring to claim 8, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 2. Ramezan further teaches wherein the user code can be value-less to provide a user code-less mode that does not protect Personal Identifiable Information of account with the authentication provider (Ramezan: abstract, paras. 0043-0048).
Referring to claim 9, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 1. Ramezan further teaches wherein the nonce data includes policy information limiting use of the authentication or the public key to uses defined in the policy information (Ramezan: paras. 0071-0113 and figs. 5a-5c, set up infos.).
Referring to claim 10, Chen and Ramezan teach the method of claim 1. Ramezan further teaches comprising: sending a message requesting authorization by the authentication provider, wherein the message includes the nonce data to be included in a nonce field of the ID token (Ramezan: abstract; paras. 0015-0017, authentication procedure).
Referring to claim 11, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 12, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 13, This claim is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 14, This claim is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 15, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 16, This claim is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 17, This claim is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 18, This claim is similar in scope to claim 10, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 19, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are related to many applications authenticate users through traditional credential mechanisms like passwords. The burden of creating and remembering unique passwords, each with high enough entropy, has become a barrier to onboard users onto new applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 is 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The examiner nots that once the applicant overcomes the above claim 20 objections and at the same time overcomes non statutory DP rejections by applying Terminal Disclaimer and approved by the office, the claims can pass to issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 02/26/2026