Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner has included Kunda US 2020/0244659 to meet the claims as amended.
Examiner notes that Applicant has amended claim 6 to state “recorded thereon in a non-transitory manner”. Examiner asserts that this does not conform to a “non-transitory computer readable medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 6 are rejected. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it could be interpreted as pure software. Software is not patentable. Claim 1 contains nothing that indicates it is not entirely a software process. Claim 6 states a “storage medium” but not a “non-transitory storage medium” and thus could be interpreted both as software and a signal, both of which are not patentable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins US 2020/0252392 in view of Gagne-Keats US 2024/0193584 in view of Kunda US 2020/0244659.
As per claims 1, and 6 (Currently amended) Mullins teaches A user authentication system, comprising:
a processor, wherein the processor: acquires a current time as a variable value;
generates a one-time password of a user based on a seed and the acquired variable value of the user; the input operation being made by the user; [0021][0032][0076] (notification of time) (submission of OTP or shared seed) (authentication) records, when the one-time password is generated, a combination of the variable value and the seed used for generating the one-
time password in a specific area [0027][0028][0032] (store timestamp and seed)
recorded in the specific area, with respect to which an elapse time from the variable
value included in the combination is longer than a specific period;
and executes, when input operation is received, in a case where the combination including the seed of the user who has made the input operation is recorded in the specific area, confirmation of validity of the input one-time password based on the one-time password input by the input operation, the seed of the user, and the variable value of the user recorded in the specific area, and determines, in a case where the combination including the seed of the user who has made the input operation is not recorded in the specific area, that authentication has failed. [0032][0067][0076] (authenticates user using seed and timestamp and OTP).
Mullins fails to teach emailing a OTP to a user. Mullins does not teach deletion of data.
Kunda teaches transmits an e-mail including the generated one-time password
to a mail address corresponding to the user and receives an input operation of the
one-time password, the input operation being made by the user;
records, when the one-time password is generated,
a combination of the variable value and the seed used for generating the one-
time password in a specific area;
deletes, from the specific area, the combination out of the combinations recorded in the specific area, with respect to which an elapse time from the variable value included in the combination is longer than a specific period;
and executes, when input operation is received, in a case where the combination including the seed of the user who has made the input operation is recorded in the specific area, confirmation of validity of the input one-time password based on the one-time password input by the input operation, the seed of the user, and the variable value of the user recorded in the specific area, and determines, in a case where the combination including the seed of the user who has made the input operation is not recorded in the specific area, that authentication has failed. [0018][0023][0028][0031] (teaches emailing a user a OTP, teaches OTP is a combination of variable and seed values; teaches deletion of authentication data after revocation or authentication data is provisioned for a limited time, teaches that authentication will fail in subsequent attempts because the authentication data is not valid; teaches the OTP is concatenation of values including seed, timestamp, random number, etc)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Kunda with the prior art because it improves authentication security.
Gagne-Keats additionally teaches wherein when determined by the confirmation that the input one-time password is valid, the variable value used in the confirmation is deleted from the specific area, to thus set the variable value used in the confirmation to become unusable. [0095] (teaches deletion of data after a time period when it becomes unusable)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teaching of Gagne-Keats with the prior art because it is resource efficient.
As per claim 3, Kunda teaches The user authentication system according to claim 1, Mullins teaches wherein when determined by the confirmation that the input one-time password is valid, delete the combination including the variable value used in the confirmation from the specific area. the variable value used in the confirmation is set to become unusable. [0028][0031] (teaches deletion of authentication data after revocation or authentication data is provisioned for a limited time, teaches that authentication will fail in subsequent attempts because the authentication data is not valid; teaches the OTP is concatenation of values including seed, timestamp, random number, etc)
Gagne-Keats additionally teaches wherein when determined by the confirmation that the input one-time password is valid, the variable value used in the confirmation is deleted from the specific area, to thus set the variable value used in the confirmation to become unusable. [0095] (teaches deletion of data after a time period when it becomes unusable)
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 CHRISTOPHER BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571) 270-5002. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights