Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendments filed 9/20/2024 has been entered. Applicant canceled claims 1-20 and added claims 21-40. The claims 21-40 are pending.
Examiner’s Notes
The Specification has been reviewed and no known errors were found. However, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamel et al. (US Pub No 2019/0303590) in view of Hughes et al. (US Pub No 2015/0121464).
Hamel teaches claim:
21. A method performed by a secure device, the method comprising:
receiving a request to revoke a digital credential of an accessor user account at the secure device (e.g., “In 606, an indication of revoked credentials is received” @ ¶ 0041 & Fig. 6 and “In 802, one or more credentials are identified to be revoked. For example, in the event the process comprises an employee termination process, a credential verifying employment status is revoked. In 804, an indication of the one or more credentials to be revoked is provided to a credential system.” ¶ 0043);
[when a fade-out policy is implemented for the digital credential, performing a fade-out process for the digital credential at the secure device];
deleting the digital credential from the secure device (e.g., “In 610, revoked credentials are deleted.” ¶ 0041); and
responsive to deleting the digital credential from the secure device, providing for transmission, to a server device, a notification that the digital credential has been deleted at the secure device (e.g., “In 904, an indication of revoked credentials is received from the credential server” ¶ 0044 and “In 1002, an indication is stored in a distributed ledge that the credential is revoked” ¶ 0045).
Hamel discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above with regards to receiving a request to revoke a digital credential and deleting the revoked credentials (¶ 0041), but does not explicitly disclose an optional step of “when a fade-out policy is implemented for the digital credential, performing a fade-out process for the digital credential at the secure device”. However, analogous art from the same field of endeavor, Hughes teaches this with “user's prior authorization may be revoked and all data access (e.g., access to application resources or functionality) is restricted. Similarly, other security levels may correspond to different geographic regions requiring various levels of authorization credentials or accessibility, without limiting access altogether as in the predetermined restriction zone.” (¶ 0067). Prior Art Hughes teaches upon revoking a user’s credential, restricting access to data but not completely limiting access altogether, and further reducing access based on security level (¶ 0067-0068). Hughes further teaches an authorization parameters with session counter “for allowing user access for only a predetermined number of times” (¶ 0071). Therefore, based on Hamel in view of Hughes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hughes to the system of Hamel in order to “automatically authorizing the user for access to a particular application or resource of the mobile device” and “to vary a security level or amount of authorization credentials required to authorize a user for data access” (¶ 0019-0020) . Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
The prior arts above further teach claim:
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the providing for transmission of the notification to the server device triggers a transmission of a revocation command to an electronic device associated with the accessor user account (e.g., updating the user device with the revocation command @ Hamel ¶ 0022 & 0026 and further @ Hughes ¶ 0060). The motivation to combine Hughes to Hamel is the same as the independent claim above.
The prior arts above further teach claim:
23. The method of claim 21, wherein performing the fade-out process comprises downgrading a usability of the digital credential at the secure device over time in multiple steps (e.g., restricting access based on security @ Hughes ¶ 0067 and session counter parameter ¶ 0071). The motivation to combine Hughes to Hamel is the same as the independent claim above.
The prior arts above further teach claim:
24. The method of claim 21, wherein receiving the request to revoke the digital credential of the accessor user account at the secure device comprises: receiving, via a user interface provided by the secure device, the request to revoke the digital credential of the accessor user account (e.g., user interface @ Hamel ¶ 0036-0038 and further @ Hughes ¶ 0022). The motivation to combine Hughes to Hamel is the same as the independent claim above.
The prior arts above further teach claim:
25. The method of claim 21, wherein receiving the request to revoke the digital credential of the accessor user account at the secure device comprises: receiving, via a communication link, the request to revoke the digital credential from a server associated with the digital credential (e.g., receiving request via a communication link over a network @ Hamel ¶ 0026, 0044 & Fig. 1).
The prior arts above further teach claim:
26. The method of claim 25, wherein the request to revoke the digital credential originates from at least one of: a request received from an electronic device associated with a primary authorized user account of the secure device, or a request received from another electronic device associated with the accessor user account (e.g., request to revoke the digital credential originates from at least one of: the credential app checking against the database system @ Hamel ¶ 0022 and further @ Hughes ¶ 0067-0068).
The motivation to combine Hughes to Hamel is the same as the independent claim above.
The prior arts above further teach claim:
27. The method of claim 26, wherein the request to revoke the digital credential originates from a request received through a web browser via a third electronic device that is distinct from the electronic device and the other electronic device (e.g., user via computing system interacting with a database system @ Hamel ¶ 0021 and credential entered is via a web browser @ Hughes ¶ 0061, 0068, & 0070). The motivation to combine Hughes to Hamel is the same as the independent claim above.
Claim 28 is substantially similar to claim 21 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 29 is substantially similar to claim 23 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 30 is substantially similar to claim 24 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 31 is substantially similar to claim 25 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 32 is substantially similar to claim 26 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 33 is substantially similar to claim 27 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
The prior arts above further teach claim:
34. (New) The secure device of claim 31, wherein the communication link comprises at least one of a telematics link or a cellular data connection (e.g., using cellular telephone @ Hughes ¶ 0050 & 0052). The motivation to combine Hughes to Hamel is the same as the independent claim above.
Claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 21 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 36 is substantially similar to claim 23 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 24 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 38 is substantially similar to claim 25 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 39 is substantially similar to claim 26 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 40 is substantially similar to claim 27 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly, DiMaggio et al. (US Pub No 2019/0258807) discloses relevant method for automated adjusting of device access policies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/CHAU LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408