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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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. 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-I.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 U.S. Patent No. 12,137,126 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. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because modifications are obvious.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsui et al., US Pub. No.20140282882.
As to claim 1, Tsui discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system and from a media streaming device (content server 130 fig.1), a request for a session of a streaming service, the request associated with a user account and determining, by the computing system, that the user account is associated with the streaming service (the device 130 may utilize the user account to obtain or provide data, for example to play music from a service (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]), and
transmitting, by the computing system, a session token to the media streaming device based at least in part on determining that the user account is associated with the streaming service, the session token comprising an expiration parameter for ending the session (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]).
As to claim 2, Tsui discloses generating 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 receiving 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 comparing the first value to the second value, wherein the user account is determined to be associated with the streaming service based at least in part on 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]).
As to claim 5, Tsui discloses the session token restricts access to account information (authorize the token with the provider authorization service, see [0038]).
As to claim 6, Tsui discloses the expiration parameter comprises an expiration time (token expiration, see [0039]).
As to claim 7, Tsui discloses receiving, from the media streaming device, a request for reauthentication of the user account, transmitting a third value to the media streaming device, the third value to be processed by a user device associated with the user account, receiving a fourth value from the media streaming device, comparing the third value with the fourth value, and determining 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 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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui at al., US Pub. No.20140282882 in view of Mesiano et al., US Pub. No.20180076954.
As to claim 4, Tsui does not 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.
Conclusion
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