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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are examined on their merits. Claims 1-8 have been rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, it recites the limitations “ generating a random number; displaying the random code at a display…; selecting the digits of the random code in response to a first input…; adjusting selected digits of the random code in response to a second input …; repeating the steps of selecting and adjusting …”
Limitations generating a random number, selecting the digits of the random number and adjusting selected digits of the random number, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover a mathematical concept or algorithm but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept or algorithm but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an Abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element – using a display for displaying the random code. The display in the displaying step is recited at a high-level of generality that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, additional element of displaying the random code at a display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-3, they recite the limitations such as “display is a display of the insecure device” or “access code is a code of a secure device that is connected … with the insecure device”. These additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Hence claims 2 and 4 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-8, they recite the limitations such as selectively denying or granting or restricting access to a memory of a secure device in response to the incremented digits of the random code not matching all digits of the access code. Using access code for selectively controlling access to a computing device is well understood routine and conventional in the art. Official notice of these facts are taken. Viewed as a whole , the claim elements do not provide significant or meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 6-8 are not patent eligible.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2013/0276101 A1 (hereinafter Rautenbach et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Rautenbach et al. teaches a method for securely entering an access code using an insecure device, the method comprising:
generating a random code (note figure 3.304; para. [0068], [0075]);
displaying the random code at a display (note figure 3.304; para. [0068], [0075]: computing displaying a random value for the password);
selecting a digit of the random code in response to a first input from the insecure device (note figure 3.306; para. [0068], [0076] –[0077]);
adjusting the selected digit of the random code in response to a second input from the insecure device (note figure 3.306; para. [0068], [0076] – [0077]: adjusting password value/ digits); and
repeating the steps of selecting and adjusting digits of the random code until the incremented digits of the random code match all digits of the access code (note figure 3.308; para. [0072], [0077] –[0078]: repeating the process until the correct password is displayed)
Regarding claim 2, Rautenbach et al. teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the display is a display of the insecure device (note para. [0027], [0066], [0073]: password entry using non-secure device)
Regarding claim 3, Rautenbach et al. teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the access code is a code of a secure device that is connected in communication with the insecure device (note para. [0028], [0067]: non-secure device initiating password entry transaction with a secure display unit)
Regarding claim 4, Rautenbach et al. teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the display is a display of the secure device (note para. [0067])
Regarding claim 5, Rautenbach et al. teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the secure device performs the steps of generating, displaying, selecting, and incrementing (note para. [0068], [0076] –[0077]: secure display device for generating random number, adjusting random value for password)
Regarding claim 6, Rautenbach et al. teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising denying access to a memory of a secure device in response to the incremented digits of the random code not matching all digits of the access code (note figure 3: access control on a secure device; para. [0002], [0017], [0065])
Regarding claim 7, Rautenbach et al. teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising granting access to a memory of a secure device in response to the incremented digits of the random code matching all digits of the access code (note figure 3: access control on a secure device; para. [0002], [0017], [0065]: using password based on random values)
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rautenbach et al.
Regarding claim 8, Rautenbach et al. fails to teach expressly the method of claim 1 further comprising, in response to selecting a subsequent digit of the random code has been selected, prohibiting re-selection of a previous digit.
However, Rautenbach et al. teaches in response to selecting a subsequent digit of the random code has been selected, selecting an adjusted value in increment of (+) 1 or (-) 1. (note para. [0063], [0068]: when a selected random value is displayed, user would adjust the password value in increment of (+) 1 or (-) 1. In other words, a different or adjusted value for the password digit is re-selected instead of reselecting the same/ previous digit. Furthermore, examiner takes an office notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, using a different password value (instead of re-selecting the same/ previous password) for the purpose of designing a stronger password was well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method disclosed in Rautenbach et al. for also in response to selecting a subsequent digit of the random code has been selected, prohibiting re-selection of a previous digit. This modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, and would have been motivated to do so since Rautenbach et al. suggests use of using a different password value in increment of (+) 1 or (-) 1 for providing increased password entropy, or providing a secure password input mechanism (note Rautenbach et al. , [0063], [0068])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liou, US 20160381009 A1 teaches a method/ system for implementing a password security hardware module comprising: receiving, by a client device, a username, password and binding code from a user; transmitting, by the client device, a request for a session code from the server device; receiving, by the client device, the session code from the server device; providing and displaying, by the client device, a random pattern keypad based on the binding code and the session code; receiving, by the client device, a password input from the user via the random pattern keypad; generating, by the client device, a virtual one-time password based on the password input from the user; and transmitting, by the client device, the virtual one-time password to the server device to authenticate the client device and access services offered by the server device.(See Liou, Abstract)
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire in 3 (Three) months and 0 (Zero) days from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in ABANDOMENT of the application (see 35 U.S.C 133, M.P.E.P 710.02(b)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim, can be reached on 571-272-3804. The RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHANTO ABEDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights