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 .
The amendment, filed on 5/6/2026, is acknowledged and considered.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are cancelled by Applicant. Claims 21-23 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recites a "non-transitory computer-readable medium" claim type that is dependent onto claim 7. However, claim 7 is a device claim, Thus, claim 23 fails to refer to the proper structure. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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.
The current amendment prompted a further examination and consideration, whereby claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23, are now rejected under Vijayan, et al. [US 20230325814] in view of Alexander, et al. [US 20230244775].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan, et al. [US 20230325814] in view of Alexander, et al. [US 20230244775].
As per claim 1: Vijayan, et al. teaches a device, comprising:
one or more processors configured to: [Vijayan: para 0005]
use a Near Field Communication ("NFC") protocol [Vijayan: para 0570; an I/O device is paired with a wallet device using NFC or BLE, which are examples of short-range wireless communication protocols. An input element of the I/O device is used to provide selections of actions executed by the wallet device, and an output element of the I/O device is used to provide a corresponding output based on the selected action] to wirelessly communicate with a security device; [Vijayan: para 0225, 0431, 0561; i.e. the verifier computer system, a device for safeguarding, safe devices]
receive network-based authentication information associated with the device, wherein the network-based authentication information [Vijayan: para 0085; receiving a digital signature to a challenge. Para 0177; Each one of these digital elements can have multiple numbered copies, just like a lithograph, and each such version can have a serial number associated with it, and/or digital signatures authenticating its validity] **includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network; [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
generate a security score for the device based on: [Vijayan: para 0030-0036, 0329, 0340; examples of security score. The limitation of “security score” is not explicitly defined, thus, a security score can broadly be interpreted and given as a value or grade that is associated to the security which may involve risk, trust or safety related determination that points to the security score per se]
using the NFC protocol [Vijayan: para 0569-0570] to wirelessly communicate with the security device, and [Vijayan: para 0225, 0431, 0561; i.e. the verifier computer system, a device for safeguarding, safe devices]
the network-based authentication information associated with the device; and [Vijayan: para 0234, 0578-0579; The verification comprise receiving a digital signature generated by a trusted party, asserting that the verified device complies with one or more requirements]
output, to a particular network-accessible resource, an access request [Vijayan: para 0178; request authentication of the NFT directly based upon the public key of the content creator and/or indirectly based upon transaction records within the NFT blockchain. Para 0379-0380, 0596, 0601; examples of request and association to the risk score or security score to provide access], wherein outputting the access request includes outputting the security score and the one or more digital signatures [Vijayan: para 0065-0066, 0558-0559] **generated by the particular wireless network [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below], wherein the network-accessible resource accepts or denies the access request based on the security score and the one or more digital signatures [Vijayan: para 0184; data access service may grant access to data stored using the permissioned blockchain. Para 0221, 0233, 0370; examples of access determination based on score and signature] **generated by the particular wireless network. [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
Vijayan teaches request or challenges with signature [Vijayan: para 0085, 0177]. However, Vijayan did not clearly includes the digital signature “generated by a particular wireless network”.
Alexander discloses a wireless signature from one or more of these sources is a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) signature, a WLAN signature, a cellular signature, or a near-field communication (NFC) signature. A wireless signature include information that is detectable before and/or after connecting with a corresponding device. Further, a wireless signature include information that is intentionally transmitted by the corresponding device (e.g., a transmitted identifier such as a MAC address) and other types of information (e.g., wireless characteristics of the device related to its physical configuration). Further, BLE beacon devices transmit a universally unique identifier that informs mobile device that one or more devices are nearby, without connecting, e.g., through BLE, to these devices. NFC signatures involve short-range radio waves that allow mobile device to determine that another NFC device is a short distance away [Alexander: para 0033]. As such, a digital signature generated by a particular wireless network may broadly be in the form of a wireless signature, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) signature, a WLAN signature, a cellular signature, or a near-field communication (NFC) signature. Alexander obviously suggest the “includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network”, where one would be motivated to use wireless signature to determine an authentication decision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alexander with Vijayan to teach “includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network” for the reason to use wireless signature to determine an authentication decision that involves automated authentication decisions based on an unsupervised computer learning process [Alexander: para 0003, 0034].
Claim 2: Vijayan: para 0317; discussing the device of claim 1, wherein the security device includes a Europay, Mastercard, Visa ("EMV") chip.
Claim 3: cancel
Claim 4: Vijayan: para 0562, 0614 [device address or identifier]; discussing the device of claim 1, wherein the network-based authentication information includes an indication that the wireless network has verified an identifier of the device.
Claim 5: Vijayan: para 0562, 0614 [device address or identifier]; discussing the device of claim 4, wherein the identifier includes at least one of: a Mobile Directory Number ("MDN"), an International Mobile Station Equipment Identity ("IMEI"), or an International Mobile Subscriber Identity ("IMSI").
Claim 6: Vijayan: para 0373, 0380; discussing the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor or receive network-based authentication information associated with the device over time; and modify the security score for the device on an ongoing basis based on the network-based authentication information received or monitored over time.
Claim 7: Vijayan: para 0417, 0595-0596; discussing the device of claim 1, wherein the security device is a first security device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: wirelessly communicate with a second security device; and modify the security score for the device further based on wirelessly communicating with the second security device.
As per claim 8: Vijayan, et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing a plurality of processor-executable instructions to:
use a Near Field Communication ("NFC") protocol [Vijayan: para 0570; an I/O device is paired with a wallet device using NFC or BLE, which are examples of short-range wireless communication protocols. An input element of the I/O device is used to provide selections of actions executed by the wallet device, and an output element of the I/O device is used to provide a corresponding output based on the selected action] to wirelessly communicate, by a device with a security device; [Vijayan: para 0225, 0431, 0561; i.e. the verifier computer system, a device for safeguarding, safe devices]
receive network-based authentication information associated with the device, wherein the network-based authentication information [Vijayan: para 0085; receiving a digital signature to a challenge. Para 0177; Each one of these digital elements can have multiple numbered copies, just like a lithograph, and each such version can have a serial number associated with it, and/or digital signatures authenticating its validity] includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network; [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
generate a security score for the device based on: [Vijayan: para 0030-0036, 0329, 0340; examples of security score. The limitation of “security score” is not explicitly defined, thus, a security score can broadly be interpreted and given as a value or grade that is associated to the security which may involve risk, trust or safety related determination that points to the security score per se]
using the NFC protocol [Vijayan: para 0569-0570] to wirelessly communicate with the security device, and [Vijayan: para 0225, 0431, 0561; i.e. the verifier computer system, a device for safeguarding, safe devices]
the network-based authentication information associated with the device; and [Vijayan: para 0234, 0578-0579; The verification comprise receiving a digital signature generated by a trusted party, asserting that the verified device complies with one or more requirements]
output, to a particular network-accessible resource, an access request [Vijayan: para 0178; request authentication of the NFT directly based upon the public key of the content creator and/or indirectly based upon transaction records within the NFT blockchain. Para 0379-0380, 0596, 0601; examples of request and association to the risk score or security score to provide access], wherein outputting the access request includes outputting the security score and the one or more digital signatures [Vijayan: para 0065-0066, 0558-0559] **generated by the particular wireless network [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below], wherein the network-accessible resource accepts or denies the access request based on the security score and the one or more digital signatures [Vijayan: para 0184; data access service may grant access to data stored using the permissioned blockchain. Para 0221, 0233, 0370; examples of access determination based on score and signature] **generated by the particular wireless network. [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
Vijayan teaches request or challenges with signature [Vijayan: para 0085, 0177]. However, Vijayan did not clearly includes the digital signature “generated by a particular wireless network”.
Alexander discloses a wireless signature from one or more of these sources is a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) signature, a WLAN signature, a cellular signature, or a near-field communication (NFC) signature. A wireless signature include information that is detectable before and/or after connecting with a corresponding device. Further, a wireless signature include information that is intentionally transmitted by the corresponding device (e.g., a transmitted identifier such as a MAC address) and other types of information (e.g., wireless characteristics of the device related to its physical configuration). Further, BLE beacon devices transmit a universally unique identifier that informs mobile device that one or more devices are nearby, without connecting, e.g., through BLE, to these devices. NFC signatures involve short-range radio waves that allow mobile device to determine that another NFC device is a short distance away [Alexander: para 0033]. As such, a digital signature generated by a particular wireless network may broadly be in the form of a wireless signature, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) signature, a WLAN signature, a cellular signature, or a near-field communication (NFC) signature. Alexander obviously suggest the “includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network”, where one would be motivated to use wireless signature to determine an authentication decision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alexander with Vijayan to teach “includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network” for the reason to use wireless signature to determine an authentication decision that involves automated authentication decisions based on an unsupervised computer learning process [Alexander: para 0003, 0034].
Claim 9: Vijayan: para 0317; discussing the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the security device includes a Europay, Mastercard, Visa ("EMV") chip.
Claim 10: cancelled
Claim 11: Vijayan: para 0562, 0614 [device address or identifier]; discussing the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the network-based authentication information includes an indication that the wireless network has verified an identifier of the device.
Claim 12: Vijayan: para 0562, 0614 [device address or identifier]; discussing the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the identifier includes at least one of: a Mobile Directory Number ("MDN"), an International Mobile Station Equipment Identity ("IMEI"), or an International Mobile Subscriber Identity ("IMSI").
Claim 13: Vijayan: para 0373, 0380; discussing the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the plurality of processor-executable instructions further include processor-executable instructions to: monitor or receive network-based authentication information associated with the device over time; and modify the security score for the device on an ongoing basis based on the network-based authentication information received or monitored over time.
Claim 14: Vijayan: para 0417, 0595-0596; discussing the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the security device is a first security device, wherein the plurality of processor-executable instructions further include processor-executable instructions to: wirelessly communicate with a second security device; and modify the security score for the device further based on wirelessly communicating with the second security device.
As per claim 15: Vijayan, et al. teaches a method, comprising:
using a Near Field Communication ("NFC") protocol [Vijayan: para 0570; an I/O device is paired with a wallet device using NFC or BLE, which are examples of short-range wireless communication protocols. An input element of the I/O device is used to provide selections of actions executed by the wallet device, and an output element of the I/O device is used to provide a corresponding output based on the selected action] to wirelessly communicate, by a device, with a security device; [Vijayan: para 0225, 0431, 0561; i.e. the verifier computer system, a device for safeguarding, safe devices]
receiving network-based authentication information associated with the device, wherein the network-based authentication information [Vijayan: para 0085; receiving a digital signature to a challenge. Para 0177; Each one of these digital elements can have multiple numbered copies, just like a lithograph, and each such version can have a serial number associated with it, and/or digital signatures authenticating its validity] **includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network; [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
generating a security score for the device based on: [Vijayan: para 0030-0036, 0329, 0340; examples of security score. The limitation of “security score” is not explicitly defined, thus, a security score can broadly be interpreted and given as a value or grade that is associated to the security which may involve risk, trust or safety related determination that points to the security score per se]
using the NFC protocol [Vijayan: para 0569-0570] to wirelessly communicate with the security device, and [Vijayan: para 0225, 0431, 0561; i.e. the verifier computer system, a device for safeguarding, safe devices]
the network-based authentication information associated with the device; and [Vijayan: para 0234, 0578-0579; The verification comprise receiving a digital signature generated by a trusted party, asserting that the verified device complies with one or more requirements]
outputting, to a particular network-accessible resource, an access request [Vijayan: para 0178; request authentication of the NFT directly based upon the public key of the content creator and/or indirectly based upon transaction records within the NFT blockchain. Para 0379-0380, 0596, 0601; examples of request and association to the risk score or security score to provide access], wherein outputting the access request includes outputting the security score and the one or more digital signatures [Vijayan: para 0065-0066, 0558-0559] **generated by the particular wireless network [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below], wherein the network-accessible resource accepts or denies the access request based on the security score and the one or more digital signatures [Vijayan: para 0184; data access service may grant access to data stored using the permissioned blockchain. Para 0221, 0233, 0370; examples of access determination based on score and signature] **generated by the particular wireless network. [rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
Vijayan teaches request or challenges with signature [Vijayan: para 0085, 0177]. However, Vijayan did not clearly includes the digital signature “generated by a particular wireless network”.
Alexander discloses a wireless signature from one or more of these sources is a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) signature, a WLAN signature, a cellular signature, or a near-field communication (NFC) signature. A wireless signature include information that is detectable before and/or after connecting with a corresponding device. Further, a wireless signature include information that is intentionally transmitted by the corresponding device (e.g., a transmitted identifier such as a MAC address) and other types of information (e.g., wireless characteristics of the device related to its physical configuration). Further, BLE beacon devices transmit a universally unique identifier that informs mobile device that one or more devices are nearby, without connecting, e.g., through BLE, to these devices. NFC signatures involve short-range radio waves that allow mobile device to determine that another NFC device is a short distance away [Alexander: para 0033]. As such, a digital signature generated by a particular wireless network may broadly be in the form of a wireless signature, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) signature, a WLAN signature, a cellular signature, or a near-field communication (NFC) signature. Alexander obviously suggest the “includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network”, where one would be motivated to use wireless signature to determine an authentication decision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alexander with Vijayan to teach “includes one or more digital signatures generated by a particular wireless network” for the reason to use wireless signature to determine an authentication decision that involves automated authentication decisions based on an unsupervised computer learning process [Alexander: para 0003, 0034].
Claim 16: Vijayan: para 0317; discussing the method of claim 15, wherein the security device includes a Europay, Mastercard, Visa ("EMV") chip.
Claim 17: Cancelled
Claim 18: Vijayan: para 0562, 0614 [device address or identifier]; discussing the method of claim 15, wherein the network-based authentication information includes an indication that the wireless network has verified an identifier of the device, wherein the identifier includes at least one of: a Mobile Directory Number ("MDN"), an International Mobile Station Equipment Identity ("IMEI"), or an International Mobile Subscriber Identity ("IMSI").
Claim 19: Vijayan: para 0373, 0380; discussing the method of claim 15, further comprising: monitoring or receiving network-based authentication information associated with the device over time; and modifying the security score for the device on an ongoing basis based on the network-based authentication information received or monitored over time.
Claim 20: Vijayan: para 0417, 0595-0596; discussing the method of claim 15, wherein the security device is a first security device, the method further comprising: wirelessly communicating with a second security device; and modifying the security score for the device further based on wirelessly communicating with the second security device.
Claim 21: Vijayan: para 0372, 0612-0615; discussing the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining that a threshold amount of time has passed since wirelessly communicating with the security device; and modifying the security score for the device based on determining that the threshold amount of time has passed since wirelessly communicating with the security device.
Claim 22: Vijayan: para 0372, 0612-0615; discussing the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that a threshold amount of time has passed since wirelessly communicating with the security device; and modify the security score for the device based on determining that the threshold amount of time has passed since wirelessly communicating with the security device.
Claim 23: Vijayan: para 0372, 0612-0615; discussing the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein the plurality of processor-executable instructions further include processor-executable instructions to: determine that a threshold amount of time has passed since wirelessly communicating with the security device; and modify the security score for the device based on determining that the threshold amount of time has passed since wirelessly communicating with the security device.
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 Leynna Truvan whose telephone number is (571)272-3851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM, EST.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
Leynna Truvan
Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/L.TT/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights