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 Amendment
2. This is in response to the amendments filed on 06/05/2026. Claims 1, 9, 10, and 12-17 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
The drawing objection and 112(b) rejection to the claim 22 has been reconsidered and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On the Remarks, Applicant argues that;
Xiao-Qiang does not disclose "determining a binding result of the first
account according to the first field value," as recited in claim 1.
Xiao-Qiang fails to disclose the "binding result".
Xiao-Qiang does not disclose "in response to that the binding result of the first account represents that there is a second field value in the second field bound with the first field value, passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field value."
claim 1 is not rendered obvious by Whitcomb in view of Xiao-Qiang.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's argument that Xiao-Qiang does not disclose "determining a binding result of the first account according to the first field value,", it is noted that, Xiao-Qiang at Description/Page 17, Description/Page 15, Description/Page 16 discloses, “In operation 508, …. sends an account binding response to ….. a successful binding response….after the account number is bound”, “Step 506: …. sends an account binding request to ….the account number binding request comprises a first access token and a second access token…In step 507, …. binds the first account ….after the verification of the first access token is passed”, ”the account binding request …. and the expiration time of the first access token …..the expiration time of the second access token can be carried in the account binding request”, which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first …value and a second ….value;” because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first …value and a second ….value;” includes an account binding response/a successful binding response is sent/received in operation 508, after the account number is bound/ after the account binding request is verified. In the previous steps 506 and 507, account binding request [comprising a first access token as well as the expiration time of the first access token and a second access token as well as the expiration time of the second access token is sent/received and verified, equivalent to the claimed ‘determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first value and a second value’. [an account binding response/a successful binding response of Xiao-qiang is equivalent to the claimed ‘binding result’. Account binding response is the result of verification of the Account binding request which comprises a first access token/the expiration time of the first access token and a second access token/the expiration time of the second access token, thus equivalent to the claimed ‘the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first value and a second value’. The expiration time of the first access token and a second access token of Xiao-qiang is equivalent to the existing relationship between the first value and a second value. Moreover, it is noted that, WHITCOMB at Para.0129 discloses; “determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed, ‘determining …. the first account according to the first field ….’.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that Xiao-Qiang does not disclose "in response to that the binding result of the first account represents that there is a second field value in the second field bound with the first field value, passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field value.", it is noted that, Xiao-qiang at Description/Page 17, Description/Page 15, Description/Page 37, Description/Page 38, Description/Page 16 discloses; “In operation 508, …. sends an account binding response to ….. a successful binding response….after the account number is bound”, “Step 506:…. the account number binding request comprises a first access token and a second access token”, “… the first access token and an expiration time of the first access token ….”, “….the second access token and the expiration time of the second access token …..”, “the expiration time … include an effective time point and an effective time length of the corresponding access token…the account binding request …. and the expiration time of the first access token …..the expiration time of the second access token can be carried in the account binding request”, which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “…… the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value," because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “…… the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value," includes the account number binding request comprising a first access token and a second access token, the first and second access token contain an expiration time [claimed ‘first and second value’],which is equivalent to the claimed ‘….. a second value bound with the first value’. Also, Xiao-qiang at Description/Page 18 discloses; “In operation 512 …..cloud platform binds the server …..with the …..account ….. after passing the authentication of the second access token” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “…. passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value," because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “….passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value " includes a successful binding response is sent containing the first and second access token with an expiration time in operation 508, afterwards In operation 512, cloud platform binds the server with the account after passing the authentication of the second access token, thus equivalent to the claimed ‘…the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value, passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value.’ Moreover, it is noted that, WHITCOMB at FIG. 6/Para.0129, Para.0130 discloses; “queries 604 ….determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a…. associates 610 the first set of electronic credentials with the user and with the first account and stores 612 the first set of electronic credentials …… of the user”, “queries 614 a second core processing system 122n to determine a different identifier for a different account for the user with the second core processing system 122n….authenticates ….the user with the second core processing system 122n using the different set of electronic credentials….. associates …..the different set of electronic credentials with the user and with the different account” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed, ‘in response to …. the …..result of the first account …… there is a second field ….. with the first field ….. passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field ……’. From FIG.6 it is seen that, at step 604, a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a is determined, consequently at step 610 the first set of electronic credentials associated with the first account of the user is stored, then at step 614 a different identifier [claimed ‘second field’] for a different account [claimed ‘second account’] for the user with the second core processing system 122n is determined and therefore the user is authenticated with the second core processing system 122n using the different set of electronic credentials and with the different account, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘in response to the result of the first account……there is a second field …… with the first field….. passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field ……’.
It is clearly indicated that Whitcomb and Xiao-qiang fully disclose "determining a binding result of the first account according to the first field value," and "in response to that the binding result of the first account represents that there is a second field value in the second field bound with the first field value, passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field value”, and the rejection of such is sustained below.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that claim 1 is not rendered obvious by Whitcomb in view of Xiao-Qiang. It is noted that, Whitcomb at Para.0127 discloses; “determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a…. determine a different identifier for a different account for the user with the second core processing system 122n” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed, “first field of a first platform and ….. second field of a second platform;”. Also, Xiao-qiang at above mentioned citations discloses the claimed ‘determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first …. value and a second … value;’ and ‘…… the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value,’. Thus, claim 1 is rendered obvious by Whitcomb in view of Xiao-Qiang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
4. Claims 1,7,9-10,17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITCOMB et al (US 20220351204 A1) in view of Xiao-qiang et al. (CN 117751553 A)
Regarding Claim 1:
WHITCOMB discloses:
a. An identity authentication method, (Abstract; “A method includes authenticating a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system”) comprising:
acquiring a pre-configured first field of a first platform and a pre-configured second field of a second platform; (Para.0127, Para.0036, Para.0034, Para.0042; “determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a…. determine a different identifier for a different account for the user with the second core processing system 122n” first identifier for first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a is construed as first field of a first platform, a different identifier for a different account for the user with the second core processing system 122n is construed as second field of a second platform, “identifiers may be different for the different account/…. core processing systems 122a-n….”, “configured …. multiple account/…. core processing systems 122a-n, providing a user …. with …. different identifiers…. or other electronic credentials”, “determine ….. user's electronic credentials …..for one or more … core processing systems 122a-n” configured multiple account for core processing systems 122a-n, different identifiers or electronic credentials associated with different account/core processing systems 122a-n of the user are construed as pre-configured first field of a first platform and pre-configured second field of a second platform)
receiving a first field …. of the first field sent by the first platform, the first field ….. being obtained after a first account passes identity authentication on the first platform; (FIG. 5/Para.0127, Para.0134, Para.0034; “500 begins …. authenticates …. a user with electronic credentials for the user…. …. 504…. determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a”, “method ….begins …. authenticates ….. a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system 122a with first electronic credentials for the user”, “core processing systems 122a-n, providing a user ….. with …. access to each account…. different identifiers….. used for the same user for the different cores 122a-n……”from FIG. 5, it is seen that at step 502, the user is authenticated into a first environment associated with a first core processing system 122a/a first account with first electronic credentials for the user and then at step 504, a first identifier for a first account for the user is determined, the identifiers are provided by core processing systems 122a-n.Thus construed as receiving a first field sent by the first platform, the first field being obtained after a first account passes identity authentication on the first platform)
b. determining …. the first account according to the first field …. (Para.0129; “determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a”) wherein ….the first field …. and a second field …. (disclosed above) and
c. in response to …. the …..result of the first account …… there is a second field ….. with the first field ….. passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field …… (FIG. 6/Para.0129, Para.0130; “queries 604 ….determine a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a…. associates 610 the first set of electronic credentials with the user and with the first account and stores 612 the first set of electronic credentials …… of the user”, “queries 614 a second core processing system 122n to determine a different identifier for a different account for the user with the second core processing system 122n….authenticates ….the user with the second core processing system 122n using the different set of electronic credentials….. associates …..the different set of electronic credentials with the user and with the different account” from FIG.6 it is seen that, at step 604, a first identifier for a first account for the user with the first core processing system 122a is determined, consequently at step 610 the first set of electronic credentials associated with the first account of the user is stored, then at step 614 a different identifier [claimed ‘second field’] for a different account [claimed ‘second account’] for the user with the second core processing system 122n is determined and therefore the user is authenticated with the second core processing system 122n using the different set of electronic credentials and with the different account, which is equivalent to the claimed ‘in response to the result of the first account……there is a second field …… with the first field….. passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field ……’.
however, WHITCOMB does not explicitly disclose:
a. receiving a first …. value ….. sent by the …..platform, the first … value being obtained….
b. determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first …. value and a second …..value;
c. ….. the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value, passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value. [WHITCOMB discloses ‘in response to …. the …..result of the first account …… there is a second field ….. with the first field ….. passing identity authentication of a second account corresponding to the second field ……’, but WHITCOMB does not disclose ‘the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value, passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value‘]
In an analogous reference Xiao-qiang discloses:
a. receiving a first …. value ….. sent by the …..platform, the first … value being obtained…. (Description/Page 14; “In operation 505…..the …. cloud platform sends the first access token….the …..cloud platform receives the first access token”)
b. determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first …. value and a second … value; (Description/Page 17, Description/Page 15, Description/Page 16; “In operation 508, …. sends an account binding response to ….. a successful binding response….after the account number is bound”, “Step 506: …. sends an account binding request to ….the account number binding request comprises a first access token and a second access token…In step 507, …. binds the first account ….after the verification of the first access token is passed”, ”the account binding request …. and the expiration time of the first access token …..the expiration time of the second access token ….. carried in the account binding request”, In operation 508, an account binding response/a successful binding response is sent/received, after the account number is bound/ after the account binding request is verified. In the previous steps 506 and 507, account binding request [comprising a first access token as well as the expiration time of the first access token and a second access token as well as the expiration time of the second access token is sent/received and verified, thus operation 506, 507 and 508 are equivalent to the claimed ‘determining a binding result of the ….. account according to the first…. value; wherein the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first value and a second value’. [an account binding response/a successful binding response of Xiao-qiang is equivalent to the claimed ‘binding result’. Account binding response is the result of verification of the Account binding request which comprises a first access token/the expiration time of the first access token and a second access token/the expiration time of the second access token, thus equivalent to the claimed ‘the binding result represents whether a relationship exists between the first value and a second value’. The expiration time of the first access token and a second access token is construed as the existing relationship between the first value and a second value])
c. …… the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value, (Description/Page 17, Description/Page 15, Description/Page 37, Description/Page 38, Description/Page 16; “In operation 508, …. sends an account binding response to ….. a successful binding response….after the account number is bound”, “Step 506:…. the account number binding request comprises a first access token and a second access token”, “… the first access token and an expiration time of the first access token ….”, “….the second access token and the expiration time of the second access token …..”, “the expiration time … include an effective time point and an effective time length of the corresponding access token…the account binding request …. and the expiration time of the first access token …..the expiration time of the second access token can be carried in the account binding request”, the account number binding request comprises a first access token and a second access token, the first and second access token contain an expiration time [claimed ‘first and second value’],which is construed as the claimed ‘….. a second value bound with the first value’) passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value. (Description/Page 18, “In operation 512 …..cloud platform binds the server …..with the …..account ….. after passing the authentication of the second access token” In operation 508, a successful binding response is sent containing the first and second access token with an expiration time, afterwards In operation 512, cloud platform binds the server with the account after passing the authentication of the second access token, thus construed as the claimed ‘the binding result of ….. a second ….. value …..bound with the first …..value, passing identity authentication of a ….. account corresponding to the second …..value.’)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify WHITCOMB’s method of authenticating a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system by enhancing WHITCOMB’s method to include Xiao-qiang’s method for account association.
The motivation: if a user wants to manage the server devices in the different cloud platforms through an application program, the association relation between the account numbers of the user in the multiple cloud platforms is established among the multiple cloud platforms and access token is transmitted through the program modules in the application program so as to realize the secure account association.
With respect to independent claims 9 and 10, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1; therefore, claims 9 and 10 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first field …. is used to uniquely identify the first account in the first platform, and the second field ….is used to uniquely identify the second account in the second platform. (WHITCOMB, Para.0127; “a first core processing system 122a to determine a first identifier for a first account for the user ….. a second core processing system 122n to determine a different identifier for a different account for the user”)
…..the first ….value is used to …. identify the ….. account in the …..platform, and the second …..value is used to ….. identify the …… account in the …..platform. (Xiao-qiang, Description/Page 36-37, “sending a first access token ….. to the second cloud platform ….. receiving an account number binding ….. sent by the second cloud platform, wherein the account number binding …. includes the first access token and the second access token”)
With respect to dependent claim 17, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 7; therefore, claim 17 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 7.
Claims 2-6, 12-16,18-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITCOMB et al (US 20220351204 A1) in view of Xiao-qiang et al. (CN 117751553 A) and further in view of Liu Guannan et al. (An Investigation of Identity-Account Inconsistency in Single Sign-On, April, 2021)
Regarding Claim 2:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
….. the binding result of the first account …..
….. second field value in the second field bound with the first field value
…. binding relationship of the first field value and the second field value
(disclosed in claim 1)
however, WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang does not explicitly disclose:
in response to that the binding …. of the ….. account represents that there is no …. field value in the …. field bound with the …. field value, searching the …. field for a …. field value associated with the …. field value to obtain a search result; and
in response to that the search result represents that there is a ….field value in the ….field that is associated with the ….. field value, generating a …. relationship of the …. field value and the ….. field value.
In an analogous reference Liu Guannan discloses:
in response to that the binding …. of the ….. account represents that there is no …. field value in the …. field bound with the …. field value, searching the …. field for a …. field value associated with the …. field value to obtain a search result; (Page.5/Page.7/Figure 1; “to identify an existing account associated with the given user identity…. checks the UserID (stored in the "sub" field) to search for a matching account….. If there is no matching account found with the given UserID…. performs another search …. on the "email" field”, “a unique UserID (e.g., " 111. 222. 3 3 3" in the "sub " field”, “element Account A and Account B” UserID (stored in the "sub" field) is construed as field value, "email" field with Account A and Account B are construed as another field value) and
in response to that the search result represents that there is a …. field value in the …. field that is associated with the …. field value, (Page.4; “searches … to locate a specific account with the matched information based on the user identity containing a UserID and an email address ….permit the access to the recognized account without any security concerns given a match on both UserID and email address”) generating a ….relationship of the ….field value and the ….field value. (Page.5; “Once a matching account ….. is recognized…. performs a …. check to determine ….with a matching User ID is allowed. If it is permitted….the information stored in the user account …. align with the user identity”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang’s method of authenticating a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system by enhancing WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang’s method to include Liu Guannan’s method for reducing the occurrence of identity-account inconsistency.
The motivation: end-users should be aware of the existence of email address reuse and use proper authentication method with caution.
With respect to dependent claims 12 and 18, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 2; therefore, claims 12 and 18 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang and further in view of Liu Guannan discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:
…. second field value in the second field associated with the first field value….(disclosed in claim 1)
in response to that the search result represents that there is no …field value in the … field associated with the ….field value, issuing an error prompt. (Liu Guannan, Page.5; “If there is no matching account found with the given UserID….. with a matching email address…. If denied, the user authentication fails, and an error message is shown on the website”)
With respect to dependent claims 13 and 19, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 3; therefore, claims 13 and 19 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a binding result of the first account according to the first field value comprises:
….. a binding relationship corresponding to the first field value ….. according to the first field value, obtaining a binding result that there is a second field value in the second field that is bound with the first field value; (disclosed in claim 1)
however, WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang does not explicitly disclose:
in response to that a …. relationship corresponding to the …. field value is found from a set of …. relationships according to the …. field value, obtaining a binding …. that there is a …. field value in the …. field that is bound with the …...field value; and
in response to that a …. relationship corresponding to the …. field value is not found from the set of …. relationships according to the ….field value, obtaining a binding ….. that there is no …. field value in the ….field that is bound with the …….field value.
In an analogous reference Liu Guannan discloses:
in response to that a …..relationship corresponding to the …. field value is found from a set of ….. relationships according to the …..field value, (Page.5/Page.7/Figure 1; “to identify an existing account associated with the given user identity…. checks the UserID (stored in the "sub" field) to search for a matching account…. on the "email" field”, “a unique UserID (e.g., " 111. 222. 3 3 3" in the "sub " field”, “element Account A and Account B”) obtaining a binding ….. that there is a …. field value in the ….. field that is bound with the ….field value; (Page.5; “Once a matching account ….. is recognized…. performs a …. check to determine ….with a matching User ID is allowed. If it is permitted….the information stored in the user account …. align with the user identity”) and
in response to that a …. relationship corresponding to the …field value is not found from the set of …. relationships according to the …. field value, obtaining a binding ….. that there is no …..field value in the …..field that is bound with the …..field value. (Page.5; “Bob ….change his email address to Alice's email…. her online account holds an identical "email" with … an empty "sub"…. unknown UserID. Another scenario is that Alice registers her account …. using an email alias … as his primary email address….online account have the same "email" but different "sub"….happens when Bob deletes his email address …. and another user obtains this email address …. and reuses it …..”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang’s method of authenticating a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system by enhancing WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang’s method to include Liu Guannan’s method for reducing the occurrence of identity-account inconsistency.
The motivation: same as claim 2.
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 20, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 4; therefore, claims 14 and 20 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang and further in view of Liu Guannan discloses:
The method according to claim 4, wherein binding relationships in the set of binding relationships are obtained by at least one of:
pre-configuring a binding relationship of the first field value and the second field value; or,
…a second field value in the second field that is associated with the first field value ……. a binding relationship of the first field value and the second field value. (disclosed in claim 1)
……in response to that a …..field value in the ….field that is associated with the …. field value is found for the first time, generating a ….relationship of the …field value and the …. field value. (Liu Guannan, Page.5/Page.7/Figure 1; “User Bob registers the account …. for the first time getting access to …. both UserID and email address (e.g., bob@example.com) … are recorded (as Account B in Figure 1)”, “a unique UserID (e.g., " 111. 222. 3 3 3" in the "sub " field”, “element Account A and Account B”)
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 21, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 5; therefore, claims 15 and 21 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang and further in view of Liu Guannan discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the first field value being associated with the second field value comprises:
the first field …. being consistent with the second field ….. or, (WHITCOMB, Para.0077, Para.0036, Claim 5; “in a format …. compatible with …. core processing system 122a-n”, “user ….. identifiers … different for the different ….core processing systems 122a-n”, “access the first account for the user with the first core processing system using a first identifier for the user …. access the different account for the user with the second core processing system using a different identifier for the user”)
….. the ….. value being consistent with the …… value…. or, (Xiao-qiang, Description/Page 18; “comparing the …..second access token with the second access token ….. in the ….. binding request, if the two are consistent, determining that the authentication is passed”)
the first field value becoming the second field value after a preset transformation.
With respect to dependent claim 16, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 6; therefore, claim 16 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding Claim 22:
WHITCOMB in view of Xiao-qiang and further in view of Liu Guannan discloses:
The device according to claim 18, wherein the first field value being associated with the second field value comprises:
the first field value being consistent with the second field value; or, (disclosed in claim 6)
the first field value becoming the second field value after a preset transformation; and
……the service order ….. corresponding to a first user. (WHITCOMB, Para.0033; “A core processing system 122….. comprises …… one or more users…..connect one or more core processing systems 122a-n to ….. one or more ….. services”)
sending the …… to a first client corresponding to a first user. (Xiao-qiang, Description, Page.20; “provide the identification …. to the client device”)
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights