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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent. Claims 1-14 are amended. Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that, despite no argument being made, the new drawings address the objection(s) made in the previous office action. The associated objection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to claim(s) 1-12 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7 and 8, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument:
“Zou fails to disclose the features of claim 1. Zou's "type information" merely identifies the category of a backend telecommunications service that a user is requesting …. A simple text string used to route a query to a weather or SMS service is a service identifier; it does not constitute "application data associated with the third-party service" as recited in the claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims contain no details of the recited “application data” other than in name. Given no details in the claims which specifically distinguish the claimed “application data” from the “type information” of the prior art of Zou, the prior art is mapped appropriately.
“In the claimed invention, the "application data" forms part of the configuration data that is subsequently used to generate a uniform resource identifier …”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that "application data" is a part of the configuration data is unsupported by the claim language. Indeed, the claim lists them as explicitly separate from each other.
“… Zou's routing strings for weather or stock queries are entirely distinct from application data used for configuring an application. Because Zou's "type information" is not "application data associated with the third-party service," Zou fails to disclose receiving configuration data comprising the claimed application data.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. That the “application data” is later used to configure an application represents an intended use of the application data, and not a positive limitation. The recited function of the limitation in question, “… responsive to the notification, sending at least part of the configuration data to configure the application on the device …”, is limited to sending the information, as the configuration is not performed in response to the notification, but rather in response to the device receiving the configuration data.
For at least these reasons, these rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 8-10, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 2-4, 7-9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that additional arguments are directed to the alleged allowability of claims based on their dependency to already-argued claims, and do not require a response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2).
Regarding claim 1:
ZOU teaches:
A method of registering a user with a third-party service using an identity verification process, wherein the method is performed by a processing system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, and comprises ((116) Col 14 lines 23-27 "the present invention may be implemented by a program instructing relevant hardware. The program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium. When the program is run, the steps of the … present invention are performed." and Claim 1. ... a capability opening management and control unit that includes a hardware processor ..."):
receiving configuration data from the third-party service, wherein the configuration data comprises: a user number associated with the user of the third-party service ((43) Col 7 lines 13-17 "Step 402: The third-party application sends a service request to the capability opening management and control unit, where the service request carries type information of a requested service, parameter information of the service ..." and (44) Col 7 lines 20-22 "... the parameter information of the service may further include an identity (ID) of an end user."); and
application data associated with the third-party service ((44) Col 7 lines 18-20 "The type information of the service may specifically be services indicated by ordinary strings, such as weather, SMS message and stock information query …");
using the configuration data to generate a uniform resource identifier for an application associated with the identity verification process ((50) Col 7 lines 57-63 "Step 406: ... the capability opening management and control unit stores parameter information, generates a parameter identity (ID) ..., and returns an authentication address …");
distributing the URI to a device associated with the user ((52) Col 8 lines 15-16 "Step 407: The third-party application transfers the URL for authentication to the client.");
receiving a notification from the device indicating that the user has accessed the URI ((53) Col 8 lines 17-18 "Step 408: The end user accesses the identity management unit through the URL of the client." and (54) Col 8 lines 19-22 "Step 409: After determining ... that the URL is not modified during the process, the identity management unit queries the service directory unit ..."); and
responsive to the notification, sending at least part of the configuration data to configure the application on the device in order for the user to perform the identity verification process, associated with the third-party service, to register with the third-party service ((57) Col 8 lines 30-32 "Step 412: The capability opening management and control unit returns the service parameter value to the identity management unit." and (58) Col 8 lines 33-35 "Step 413: The identity management unit returns a user authentication page to the client, so that the end user can log in ...").
Regarding claim 5:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein distributing the uniform resource identifier comprises providing the uniform resource identifier to at least one of the third-party service and the device associated with the user (ZOU (52) Col 8 lines 15-16 "Step 407: The third-party application transfers the URL for authentication to the client.").
Regarding claim 6:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the application data comprises at least one of a message, a logo, an identity document, a choice of language or a redirection uniform resource identifier associated with the third-party service (ZOU (44) Col 7 lines 18-20 "The type information of the service may specifically be services indicated by ordinary strings, such as weather, SMS message …").
Regarding claim 10:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein providing the uniform resource identifier to the third-party service further comprises: providing, by the third-party service to the device associated with the user of the third-party service, the uniform resource identifier (ZOU (52) Col 8 lines 15-16 "Step 407: The third-party application transfers the URL for authentication to the client.").
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claim 1 above.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SATOH et al (Doc ID US 20050039054 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving an identity verification outcome from the identity verification process performed by the user (ZOU (61) Col 8 lines 48-50 "Step 416: The identity management unit sends, to the capability opening management and control unit, a message indicating that the user authentication succeeds."); and
SATOH teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
notifying the third-party service of the identity verification outcome ([0052] "The proxy service 30 request the security token service 40 to authenticate the client 10 ... and acquires the authentication result. The proxy service ... and notifies the determination result … to the provider 20.").
Notifying a third party of the result of the identity verification is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by SATOH. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the verification notification of SATOH with the motivation to pass on the verification results to the third party so that are able to complete any follow-on actions.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PALLER (Doc ID US 20040103308 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
PALLER teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
wherein generating the uniform resource identifier comprises: storing the configuration data in a configuration table ([0039] "... The configuration files 260 may stored at the network element 250, or at other storage locations accessible by the gateway 230.");
using a location of the configuration data in the configuration table to determine an identifier associated with the configuration data ([0042] "... information stored in the mobile network's service registry 240 includes a location reference, e.g., a uniform resource locator (URL), pointing to the location of configuration files …"); and
providing the identifier as part of the uniform resource identifier ([0047] "... the service registry may initiate the identification by sending a message .... The message includes the location reference, i.e., URL, pointing to the location of the configuration files.").
Providing the location of configuration data as part of a generated URL is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by PALLER. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the data location identifier of PALLER with the motivation to store the data until the user device is ready to initiate the verification. It is obvious to provide this ability since the user may not use the URL immediately.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of ZOU and PALLER teaches:
The method according to claim 3, further comprising: upon receipt of the notification from the device, using the notification to determine the identifier associated with the configuration data (PALLER [0049] "The protocol gateway accesses the configuration files using the location reference acquired during the identification process …");
using the identifier to determine the location of the configuration data in the configuration table (PALLER [0049] "The protocol gateway accesses the configuration files using the location reference acquired during the identification process …"); and
retrieving the configuration data from the configuration table (PALLER [0049] "The protocol gateway accesses the configuration files using the location reference ..., downloads the configuration files …").
Using location data to locate and retrieve data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by PALLER. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU and PALLER with the data location identifier of PALLER with the motivation to use the stored configuration data rather than requiring it to be resent.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of REGEP (Doc ID US 20180027354 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
REGEP teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
wherein receiving configuration data from the third-party service comprises receiving configuration data via an application programming interface ([0073] "According to FIG. 5 ..., in the step W25 the local configuration service 27 ... call the public configuration service 41 ... for getting further configuration information specific to the target device or service 51.").
Utilizing an API to receive required data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by REGEP. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the data transfer API of REGEP with the motivation to use a widespread and well known manner of interacting with remote applications to pass on the configuration data.
Regarding claim 8:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
REGEP teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
wherein configuring the application causes the application to be downloaded on to the device associated with the user ([0018] "... if the mobile client application for this specific target process had not yet been installed on the mobile device, then the ... local configuration service which will attend to the download of the required client application.").
Installing an application as a part of configuration of the application is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by REGEP. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the application installation of REGEP with the motivation to immediately install the application so that further actions can proceed without waiting for the installation to be triggered manually.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PANDRANGI et al (Doc ID WO 2016112226 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
PANDRANGI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
wherein, when the application is already installed on the device, the method comprises causing the installed application to be updated based on at least part of the configuration data sent to the device associated with the user ([0007] "... the application can be downloaded to the computing device of the second user if the computing device does not have the application installed already, and the configuration data can also be downloaded to the computing device of the second user. The application sharing system can then cause the configuration data to be applied to the application ...").
Updating an application which has already been installed is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by PANDRANGI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the application update trigger of PANDRANGI with the motivation to ensure that the application is up to date prior to use, and that the current configuration data can be applied to the application.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of LOUIS et al (Doc ID US 20170318000 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 10,
LOUIS teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
further comprising: using the user number to determine, by the third-party service, contact data associated with the user of the third-party service ([0044] "… For example, when the user authentication data provided to server computer 130 by data provider 120 includes a user phone number,");
using the contact data associated with the user to provide the uniform resource identifier to the device ([0044] "… server computer 130 may send the URL directly to user device 110 via text message.").
Using user contact data to send a URL to the user’s device is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by LOUIS. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the user contact details of LOUIS with the motivation to ensure that the URL is sent to a device associated with the user, and not necessarily the device which the user used to initiate the request.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU (Doc ID US 9124578 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MAIEREAN (Doc ID US 20200007542 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
ZOU teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
MAIEREAN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by ZOU:
further comprising registering the user with the third-party service based on the result of the identity verification process ([0032] "… In block 240, a user may request to register with a third party .... The third party may then send a request to the verification service to verify the identifier information in block 250. ... the verification service in FIG. 2 may ... transmit a verification message .... Upon receiving the verification message, the third party may complete the user registration in block 270.").
Registering a user with a service after verifying the user is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MAIEREAN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third party user identification of ZOU with the verified user registration of MAIEREAN with the motivation to complete the registration of a user only after they have been verified, in order to prevent an unauthorized user from being registered with the service.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703)756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BB/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437
