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 Application number 18/990,630 filed on 12/20/2024 has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on12/20/2024 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,142,338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention. The claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,142,338 contain every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,178,146. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention. The claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,178,146 contain every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,482. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention. The claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,482 contain every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,2186,940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention. The claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,2186,940 contain every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noë (US 8,281,379).
Regarding claim 1, Noë discloses a computer-implemented method for online authentication of online attributes, the method comprising:
determining, at a server over an electronic network, whether a user account is associated with a user, the user account being associated with authentication data, wherein the authentication data includes a lifetime value and an assurance level associated with the authentication data, wherein the assurance level relates to a degree of confidence that the authentication data associated with the user account is accurate, wherein the lifetime value identifies a length of time the authentication data is valid (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45; i.e. the authentication service verifies the end-user using user credentials wherein the end-user being associated with an identification, authentication trust level, and expiration information associated with the trust level);
receiving, at the server over the electronic network, an authentication result for the user based on identity information and credential information associated with the user and the authentication data (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45; i.e. the authorization service receives the authentication ticket providing the authentication trust level based on the end-user and credentials);
generating, at the server over the electronic network, an updated lifetime value of the authentication data associated with the user account based on the authentication result (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 8, lines 1-33; i.e. generating a validity period at least for the subsequent trust level), and
storing, by the server over the electronic network, the updated lifetime value of the authentication data in an internal database (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 7, lines31-46, col. 8, lines 1-33; i.e. storing the trust levels including the subsequent trust levels associated with extending validation period in the storage including local, global and/or cache).
Regarding claim 2, Noë discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes: authenticating, by the server, the identity information and the credential information of the user based on the authentication result (col. 5, lines 10-62).
Regarding claim 5, Noë discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes: generating, by the server, updated authentication data associated with the user account using the identity information and the credential information based on the authentication result (col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 8, lines 1-33).
Regarding claim 6, Noë discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the method further includes: storing, by the server at the internal database, the updated authentication data associated with the user account (col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 7, lines31-46, col. 8, lines 1-33).
Regarding claim 7, Noë discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes: encrypting, by the server, the authentication data associated with the user account (col. 6, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 8, Noë discloses a system comprising:
a data storage device that stores instructions for online authentication of online attributes (FIG. 1-3); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform a method including (FIG. 1-3):
determining whether a user account is associated with a user, the user account being associated with authentication data, wherein the authentication data includes a lifetime value and an assurance level associated with the authentication data, wherein the assurance level relates to a degree of confidence that the authentication data associated with the user account is accurate, wherein the lifetime value identifies a length of time the authentication data is valid (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45; i.e. the authentication service verifies the end-user using user credentials wherein the end-user being associated with an identification, authentication trust level, and expiration information associated with the trust level);
receiving an authentication result for the user based on identity information and credential information associated with the user and the authentication data (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45; i.e. the authorization service receives the authentication ticket providing the authentication trust level based on the end-user and credentials);
generating an updated lifetime value of the authentication data associated with the user account based on the authentication result (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 8, lines 1-33; i.e. generating a validity period at least for the subsequent trust level), and
storing the updated lifetime value of the authentication data stored in an internal database (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 7, lines31-46, col. 8, lines 1-33; i.e. storing the trust levels including the subsequent trust levels associated with extending validation period in the storage including local, global and/or cache).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, Noë discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for online authentication of online attributes, the method including:
determining, at a server over an electronic network, whether a user account is associated with a user, the user account being associated with authentication data, wherein the authentication data includes a lifetime value and an assurance level associated with the authentication data, wherein the assurance level relates to a degree of confidence that the authentication data associated with the user account is accurate, wherein the lifetime value identifies a length of time the authentication data is valid (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45; i.e. the authentication service verifies the end-user using user credentials wherein the end-user being associated with an identification, authentication trust level, and expiration information associated with the trust level);
receiving, at the server over the electronic network, an authentication result for the user based on identity information and credential information associated with the user and the authentication data (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45; i.e. the authorization service receives the authentication ticket providing the authentication trust level based on the end-user and credentials);
generating, at the server over the electronic network, an updated lifetime value of the authentication data associated with the user account based on the authentication result (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 8, lines 1-33; i.e. generating a validity period at least for the subsequent trust level), and
storing, by the server over the electronic network, the updated lifetime value of the authentication data stored in an internal database (FIG. 1-2, col. 3, line 47-col. 4, line 52, col. 5, lines 10-45, col. 7, lines31-46, col. 8, lines 1-33; i.e. storing the trust levels including the subsequent trust levels associated with extending validation period in the storage including local, global and/or cache).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noë (US 8,281,379) in view of Tilton (US 2014/0215586).
Regarding claim 3, Noë discloses the method of claim 1.
Noë does not explicitly disclose wherein the authentication data further includes a status identifier, wherein the status identifier is set to active, revoked, or suspended.
However, Tilton discloses wherein the authentication data further includes a status identifier, wherein the status identifier is set to active, revoked, or suspended (¶ [0028], [0036]-[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Noë and Tilton in order to reduce authentication transaction costs and risks (Tilton, ¶ [0062]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Noë in view of Tilton discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the status identifier is set to suspended while a revocation request is undergoing an evaluation for authenticity, and set to either active or revoked based on whether the revocation request is determined to be authentic or not, based on the evaluation (Tilton, ¶ [0028], [0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights