DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. US-12301705-B2 (hereinafter “Pat ‘705”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Per claim 1 (independent):
Claim 1 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 1 of the instant application.
Claims / App Language
Pat ‘705 Language
1
A method, comprising:
detecting, by a user device, an attempt by an installed application to access a service to be provided by a service provider to the user device;
determining, by the user device based at least in part on detecting the attempt, a first authentication factor based at least in part on decrypting encrypted first factor authentication information;
determining, by the user device, a second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of encrypted second factor authentication information; and
enabling, by the user device, authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor.
1
A method, comprising:
encrypting, by a processor included in a user device, first factor authentication information associated with determining a first authentication factor;
enabling, by the processor, encryption of second factor authentication associated with determining a second authentication factor;
detecting, by the processor, an attempt by the user device to access a service to be provided by a service provider;
determining, by the processor based at least in part on detecting the attempt, the first authentication factor based at least in part on decrypting the first factor authentication information; and
determining, by the processor, the second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of the second factor authentication information; and
enabling, by the processor, authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor,
wherein detecting the attempt to access the service includes comparing, by the user device, a network address associated with the service provider with communication information associated with the service provider.
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 3 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 3 of the instant application.
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 4 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 4 of the instant application.
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 5 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 5 of the instant application.
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 6 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 6 of the instant application.
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Claim 3 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 7 of the instant application.
Per claim 8 (independent):
Claim 8 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 8 of the instant application.
Claims / App Language
Pat ‘705 Language
8
A user device, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the memory and the processor being configured to:
detect an attempt by an installed application to access a service to be provided by a service provider to the user device;
determine, based at least in part on detecting the attempt, a first authentication
factor based at least in part on decrypting encrypted first factor authentication information;
determine a second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of encrypted second factor authentication information; and
enable authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in
part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor.
8
A user device, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the memory and the processor being configured to:
encrypt first factor authentication information associated with determining a first authentication factor;
enable encryption of second factor authentication associated with determining a second authentication factor;
detect an attempt by the user device to access a service to be provided by a service provider;
determine, based at least in part on detecting the attempt, the first authentication factor based at least in part on decrypting the first factor authentication information;
determine the second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of the second factor authentication information; and
enable authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor,
wherein to detect the attempt to access the service, the memory and the processor are configured to compare a network address associated with the service provider with communication information associated with the service provider.
Per claim 10 (dependent on claim 8):
Claim 10 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 10 of the instant application.
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 8):
Claim 11 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 11 of the instant application.
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 8):
Claim 12 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 12 of the instant application.
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 8):
Claim 13 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 13 of the instant application.
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 8):
Claim 14 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 14 of the instant application.
Per claim 15 (independent):
Claim 15 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 15 of the instant application.
Claims / App Language
Pat ‘705 Language
15
A non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, which when executed by a processor associated with a user device, configure the processor to:
detect an attempt by an installed application to access a service to be provided by a service provider to the user device;
determine, based at least in part on detecting the attempt, a first authentication factor based at least in part on decrypting encrypted first factor authentication information;
determine a second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of encrypted second factor authentication information; and
enable authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor.
15
A non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, which when executed by a processor included in a user device, configure the processor to:
encrypt first factor authentication information associated with determining a first authentication factor;
enable encryption of second factor authentication associated with determining a second authentication factor;
detect an attempt by the user device to access a service to be provided by a service provider;
determine, based at least in part on detecting the attempt, the first authentication factor based at least in part on decrypting the first factor authentication information;
determine the second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of the second factor authentication information; and
enable authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor,
wherein to detect the attempt to access the service, the memory and the processor are configured to compare a network address associated with the service provider with communication information associated with the service provider.
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 15):
Claim 17 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 17 of the instant application.
Per claim 18 (dependent on claim 15):
Claim 18 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 18 of the instant application.
Per claim 19 (dependent on claim 15):
Claim 19 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 19 of the instant application.
Per claim 20 (dependent on claim 15):
Claim 20 of Pat ‘705 anticipates all of the limitations in claim 20 of the instant application.
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, 6-8, 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kursun et al., US-20170357867-A1 (hereinafter “Kursun ‘867”) in view of NARUMANCHI et al., US-20220109574-A1 (hereinafter “NARUMANCHI ‘574”).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Kursun ‘867 discloses: A method, comprising:
detecting, by a user device, an attempt by an installed application to access a service to be provided by a service provider to the user device;
determining, by the user device based at least in part on detecting the attempt, a first authentication factor;
determining, by the user device, a second authentication factor
(FIG. 2, [0063], multi-modal out-of-band biometric authentication; [0064], In step 210, the user may access a website (access a service to be provided by a service provider). In one embodiment, the website may require the user to provide credentials before the user is granted access to the site; [0065], the user may access the website … on a mobile device (a user device); [0066], the website may be a company website (a service provider) … for a financial institution with which the user has an account; [0068], the user may launch an authentication computer program or application (an installed application), such as a mobile application on a mobile device (detecting, by a user device, an attempt by an installed application to access a service); [0081], In step 240, the user may provide the required data to the mobile device (the user device) – a plurality of authentication factors (i.e., multimodal biometrics in Kursun ‘867) are collected by the authentication application of the mobile device; in this context, inputting such authentication factors via the authentication application can reasonably be interpreted as detecting the attempt to access a service. In one embodiment, the user may first input the code, and then will have a predetermined amount of time to provide at least one additional data entry. For example, the user may have 5 seconds to take at least one image of the user's face (determining, based at least in part on detecting the attempt, a first authentication factor), and to speak a letter, word, phrase, number, etc. (determining a second authentication factor) for the mobile device (by the user device) to record);
enabling, by the user device, authentication of the user device with the service provider based at least in part on utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor (FIG. 2, [0092], In step 250, the mobile device (the user device) may provide the data to the server for verification (enabling, by the user device, authentication). In one embodiment, each input (e.g., code, image(s), voice sample, etc.; utilizing the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor) may be provided to the server separately; [0094], In step 260, the server may review the received data and authenticate the user (authentication of the user device with the service provider), or decline access to the user. In one embodiment, any biometrics authentication may be performed by a biometrics server).
Kursun ‘867 does not disclose but NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses: determining, by the user device, a first authentication factor based at least in part on decrypting encrypted first factor authentication information;
determining, by the user device, a second authentication factor based at least in part on enabling decryption of encrypted second factor authentication information
(FIG. 3, [0057], At step 5, the server machine 104 evaluates the encrypted plurality of features using the pre-trained ML model to obtain the client identifier value associated with the client machine 102 and the plurality of encrypted resultant values (encrypted first factor authentication information and encrypted second factor authentication information) corresponding to each of the plurality of encrypted biometric features … At step 8, the server machine 104 aggregates each of the plurality of encrypted tags authentication tags with the corresponding encrypted resultant value to obtain the aggregated ciphertext … At step 10, the client machine 102 (the user device) decrypts the aggregated ciphertext to obtain the resultant value and the authentication tag (decrypting encrypted first factor authentication information and enabling decryption of encrypted second factor authentication information) … At step 11, the client machine 102 transmits the resultant value and the authentication tag to the server machine 104 (determining a first authentication factor and a second authentication factor; as recited in [0048], “The client machine decrypts the aggregated ciphertext ... transmits the plurality of resultant values and the corresponding decrypted authentication tag to the server machine”) … At step 13, the server machine 104 authenticates the client machine 102 by comparing the weighted aggregation value with the corresponding decrypted authentication tag, wherein the client machine is authenticated based on the predefined verification threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kursun ‘867 with the encryption and decryption of multiple biometric features on the client machine to authenticate the client machine on the server machine as taught by NARUMANCHI ‘574 because it would improve the security of authentication of a user by using a plurality of encrypted biometric features. Additionally, NARUMANCHI ‘574 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches a system for privacy preserving multifactor biometric authentication for authenticating a client without a third party authentication server [0015].
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Kursun ‘867 does not disclose but NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the second authentication factor includes determining the second authentication factor based at least in part on utilizing a security algorithm (FIG. 3, [0057], At step 5, the server machine 104 evaluates the encrypted plurality of features using the pre-trained ML model to obtain the client identifier value associated with the client machine 102 and the plurality of encrypted resultant values corresponding to each of the plurality of encrypted biometric features … At step 8, the server machine 104 aggregates each of the plurality of encrypted tags authentication tags with the corresponding encrypted resultant value to obtain the aggregated ciphertext … At step 10, the client machine 102 decrypts the aggregated ciphertext to obtain the resultant value and the authentication tag (decryption of encrypted second factor authentication information utilizing a security algorithm) … At step 11, the client machine 102 transmits the resultant value and the authentication tag to the server machine 104 (determining the second authentication factor after the decryption by utilizing a security algorithm, that is, based at least in part on utilizing a security algorithm) … At step 13, the server machine 104 authenticates the client machine 102 by comparing the weighted aggregation value with the corresponding decrypted authentication tag, wherein the client machine is authenticated based on the predefined verification threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kursun ‘867 with the encryption and decryption of multiple biometric features on the client machine to authenticate the client machine on the server machine as taught by NARUMANCHI ‘574 because it would improve the security of authentication of a user by using a plurality of encrypted biometric features.
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Kursun ‘867 does not disclose but NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
enabling encryption of second factor authentication information includes verifying first biometric information, and
enabling decryption of the second factor authentication information includes verifying second biometric information
(FIG. 3, [0057], at step 1, the client machine 102 gathers biometric information from one or more biometric devices including a fingerprint device, palm-print device, face recognition device and an iris recognition device. At step 2, the client machine 102 computes the plurality of biometric features associated with one or more biometric information. At step 3, the client machine 102 encrypts the plurality of biometric features using the FHE (enabling encryption of the second factor authentication information) … At step 5, the server machine 104 evaluates the encrypted plurality of features using the pre-trained ML model to obtain the client identifier value associated with the client machine 102 and the plurality of encrypted resultant values corresponding to each of the plurality of encrypted biometric features (verifying first biometric information) … At step 10, the client machine 102 decrypts the aggregated ciphertext to obtain the resultant value and the authentication tag using FHE key pair using FHE key pair (enabling decryption of the second factor authentication information) … At step 13, the server machine 104 authenticates the client machine 102 by comparing the weighted aggregation value with the corresponding decrypted authentication tag, wherein the client machine is authenticated based on the predefined verification threshold (verifying second biometric information).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kursun ‘867 with the encryption and decryption of multiple biometric features on the client machine using a FHE to authenticate the client machine on the server machine as taught by NARUMANCHI ‘574 because it would improve the security of authentication of a user by encrypting and decrypting biometric features via the Fully Homomorphic Encryption key pair.
Per claim 8 (independent):
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 8):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 6.
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 8):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 7 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 7.
Per claim 15 (independent):
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Per claim 20 (dependent on claim 15):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 6.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 and Ponnuswamy et al., US-20220060317-A1 (hereinafter “Ponnuswamy ‘317”).
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Kursun ‘867 does not disclose but NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the encrypted first factor authentication information based at least in part on encrypting first factor authentication information
(FIG. 3, [0057], at step 1, the client machine 102 gathers biometric information from one or more biometric devices including a fingerprint device, palm print device, face recognition device and an iris recognition device. At step 2, the client machine 102 computes the plurality of biometric features associated with one or more biometric information. At step 3, the client machine 102 encrypts the plurality of biometric features using the FHE – determining the encrypted first factor authentication information ... At step 10, the client machine 102 decrypts the aggregated ciphertext to obtain the resultant value and the authentication tag ... At step 13, the server machine 104 authenticates the client machine 102 by comparing the weighted aggregation value with the corresponding decrypted authentication tag, wherein the client machine is authenticated based on the predefined verification threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kursun ‘867 with the encryption and decryption of multiple biometric features on the client machine to authenticate the client machine on the server machine as taught by NARUMANCHI ‘574 because it would improve the security of authentication of a user by using a plurality of encrypted biometric features.
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 does not disclose but Ponnuswamy ‘317 discloses: encrypting information by utilizing a first master key (FIG. 3, [0039], protecting data at rest; [0040], In a step 315, the passphrase is received and a master key (a first master key) is derived from the passphrase. The master key is used to protect the data encryption keys; [0041], In a step 320, the master key is wrapped using the trusted platform module (TPM) … the TPM-wrapped master key is stored in the credential vault … The master key is stored in the credential vault (e.g., eMMC flash) and not in the filesystem; [0042], In a step 330 (FIG. 3), backups are conducted and encrypted (encrypting information) using data encryption keys. In a step 335, the data encryption keys are encrypted using the master key.);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 with the derivation of master keys from the passphrase and storing the master keys in the credential vault protected by the TPM for encrypting data encryption keys as taught by Ponnuswamy ‘317 because it would provide more secure protection of the master key by only allowing the TPM to access the wrapped master key and improve security measures by generating the master keys based on unique and strong user identification information. Additionally, Ponnuswamy ‘317 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches the system for encrypting data at rest having a TPM module and a credential vault [FIG. 1].
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 8):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 2.
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 15):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 2.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 and Helfinstine et al., US-20220353233-A1 (hereinafter “Helfinstine ‘233”).
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 does not disclose but Helfinstine ‘233 discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the attempt to access the service includes detecting transmission of a request by the installed application for the service to a network address associated with the service provider ([0003], A user device … attempting to reach and/or access a domain (the attempt to access the service) … content hosted by a domain, such as "comcast.com," "xfinity.com,", may communicate with a name server … to obtain a network address (e.g., an Internet protocol (IP) address, etc.) associated with the domain (a network address associated with the service provider). The network device may determine and send the network address (after detecting transmission of a request by the installed application of the user device, e.g., a web browser), a modified (e.g., hashed, encrypted, etc.) identifier (e.g., a fully qualified domain name, etc.) of the domain, and an indication of the modified version of the identifier to the user device … may use the network address to communicate with a host ( e.g., a web server, etc.) of the domain and request a service (e.g., web service, etc.), a resource, and/or content associated with the modified version of the identifier.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 with the detecting of an access request made by a user device to a service via a network device for generating and sending the network address, that is, a modified identifier in order to communicate with the host of the service as taught by Helfinstine ‘233 because it would simplify the design of security protocols such as eSNI, eDNS, and/or the like, ensure hidden user device (and/or user) behavior when communicating with a network, and thus reduce data overhead and communication latency, which leads to thwart efforts of nefarious actors to intercept and/or exploit identity-based communications [0031]. Additionally, Helfinstine ‘233 is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches communications between the user device and the service management device implementing HTTPS service based on a modified DoH service [0065].
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 8):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 5.
Per claim 19 (dependent on claim 15):
Kursun ‘867 in view of NARUMANCHI ‘574 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference.
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGSEOK PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-4332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30 and Alternate Fridays 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, PHILIP CHEA can be reached at (571)272-3951. 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.
/SANGSEOK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499