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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed on 6/2/26. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting rejection
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. See 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);and, 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 a nonstatutory
double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to
be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of
activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal
disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will
determine what form 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
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over some claims
of U.S. Patent No. 12,137,126.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, claims 1, 9 and 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,137,126 (Tsui) contain every element of claims 1, 8 and 17 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1, 8 and 17 of the instant application. Tsui does not specifically disclose processing a user transient session. However, Weishaupl discloses processing a transient session (message exchanged during the transient chat session in response to receiving an instruction to close the communication channel, see [0041] to [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Weisshaupl’s teachings into the computer system of Tsui to monitor data information because it would have configured to prevent a second electronic device from accessing transient content within the memory of the first electronic device (see Weishaupl’s [0031]).
As to the remaining claims 2-7, 9-14 and 19-20, they are also rejected under
obvious type double patenting as stated in claims 1, 8 and 15 above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
Being unpatentable over Tsui et al., US Pub. No.20140282882 in view of Weishaupl et al, US. Pub. No.20160028660.
As to claim 1, Tsui discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device user authentication from a user device (content
server 130 fig. 1), a request for a session of a streaming service,
and authenticating, by the computing system, the session based on user authentication from the user device, based on the session being authenticated based on the user authentication from the user device(e.g., PANDORA) via device 130. The data may be provided by one or more servers that may request authentication credentials of a user, such as content server 140, see fig.1, [0022]), transmitting by the computing system and to the media streaming service a session token (the device 130 may utilize the user account to obtain or provide data, for example to play music from a service token
(the token may expire, for example after a predetermined time, or in some
implementations, after the provider authorization service 330 detects that the mobile
screen controller application 310 is unavailable (e.g., is offline, is out of a predetermined
range of the media application 320, is in a sleep mode, etc.), see [0038] to [0039]).
Tsui does not specifically disclose processing a user transient session. However, Weishaupl discloses processing a transient session (message exchanged during the transient chat session in response to receiving an instruction to close the communication channel, see [0041] to [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Weisshaupl’s teachings into the computer system of Tsui to monitor data information because it would have configured to prevent a second electronic device from accessing transient content within the memory of the first electronic device (see Weishaupl’s [0031]).
As to claim 2, Tsui discloses generating, by the computing system, a first value based at least in part on the request for the session, transmitting, to the media streaming device, an authentication request comprising the first value, the authentication request to be processed by a user device associated with the user account; and storing the first value (the data may be provided by one or more servers that may request authentication credentials of a user, such as content server, see [0022] to [0023]).
As to claim 3, Tsui discloses the authentication including a second value from the media streaming device, the second value generated by the user device based at least in part on the authentication request and authenticating the session by comparing the first value to the second value ( implement an optional authorization step to validate or authenticate a user using the authCode. For example, provider authorization service 330 may compare the authorization code to a database, or perform any validation process using the authorization code to ensure the authorization code is valid, see [0037] to [0038]). Tsui does not specifically disclose processing a user transient session. However, Weishaupl discloses processing a transient session (message exchanged during the transient chat session in response to receiving an instruction to close the communication channel, see [0041] to [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Weisshaupl’s teachings into the computer system of Tsui to monitor data information because it would have configured to prevent a second electronic device from accessing transient content within the memory of the first electronic device (see Weishaupl’s [0031]).
As to claim 5, Tsui discloses the session token restricts access to account information
(authorize the token with the provider authorization service, see [0038] to [0039]).
As to claim 6, Tsui discloses the expiration parameter for ending a session and an expiration time (token expiration processing, see [0039] to [0041]). Tsui does not specifically disclose processing a user transient session. However, Weishaupl discloses processing a transient session (message exchanged during the transient chat session in response to receiving an instruction to close the communication channel, see [0041] to [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Weisshaupl’s teachings into the computer system of Tsui to monitor data information because it would have configured to prevent a second electronic device from accessing transient content within the memory of the first electronic device (see Weishaupl’s [0031]).
As to claim 7, Tsui discloses receiving, by the computing system, from the media streaming device, a request for reauthentication of the user account, transmitting by the computing system, a third value to the media streaming device, the third value to be processed by a user device associated with the user account, receiving by the computing system, a fourth value from the media streaming device, comparing the third value with the fourth value, and determining by the computing system, whether to reauthenticate the user account based at least in part on comparing the third value with the fourth value (receiving a message from the movie service that an authorization is required to access movies. In response to the determination, the system may request an authorization code from a provider authorization service (530). The system may receive the authorization code (540) and in response to receiving the authorization code, the system may provide the authorization code to the device see [0044] to [0046]).
Claims 8-10, 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-3, 5-7
respectively.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-3, 5 and
6 respectively.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tsui and Weichel as in above and further of Mesiano et al., US Pub.No.20180076954.
As to claim 4, neither Tsui nor Weischaupl specifically disclose that the second value is encrypted via a first cryptographic key comprising accessing a second cryptographic key corresponding to the first cryptographic key and decrypting the second value based at least in part on the second cryptographic key, wherein first value is compared to the
second value in a decrypted format. However, Mesiano discloses the second value is
encrypted via a first cryptographic key comprising accessing a second cryptographic
key corresponding to the first cryptographic key and decrypting the second value based
at least in part on the second cryptographic key, wherein first value is compared to the
second value in a decrypted format (the encryption with the first-tier cryptographic
key 21 and the encryption with the second-tier cryptographic key 22 can for example
use a single type of encryption, wherein the secure key management system 1 provides
the encrypted data or content to the user network node 3 associated with the first-tier
cryptographic key 21 and the second-tier cryptographic key 21, see [0031]). It would
have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention was made to implement Mesiano's teachings into the computer system of
Tsui to protect data information because it would have enabled to select a preferred
risk-transfer profiling with a risk-transfer premium quote of a specific data consumer
network node of the plurality of data consumer network nodes (see Mesiano's [0032]),
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 4 and 4
respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weisshaupl et al., US pub. No.20160028660.
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 Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
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, Umar Cheema, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights