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 .
1. Claims 1-11 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. For claims 1, 7, 9-11, the phrases “/”, “or”, “at least one of”, “and/or” and “belonging to the group” have been given the broadest, reasonable interpretation of only requiring a single element from the given options in order to satisfy the requirements of the limitation.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, lines 6-7 recites, “said e-mail address (E-ML) and/or a telephone number”. However, claim 9 depends from claim 1, which has not introduced “an e-mail address (E-ML) and/or a telephone number”. Therefore, in claim 9, this phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
5. 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.
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.
(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.
6. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128240; hereafter “Richards”).
For claim 1, Richards teaches a method (50; 400) of authenticating a user (USR) by an authenticator (AUT), comprising:
- providing an authentication electronic device (1, 6) accessible to the authenticator (AUT) and equipped with authentication software (4) and service management software (5) (note paragraphs [0034] and [0038], server computers communicate with authenticators, allow access to protected resources and include an authentication engine);
- providing a user electronic device (2, 8) to a user (USR) (note paragraphs [0033] and [0038], client devices are provided to users);
- enabling communication between the user electronic device (2, 8) and the authentication electronic device (1, 6) (note paragraph [0033], client computers may communicate with server computers and devices through network);
- performing electronic authentication (200; 600) by exchanging data/information between the user electronic device (2, 8) and the authentication electronic device (1, 6) (note paragraphs [0046] and [0076], electronic authentication is performed by providing user name and password OR PIN);
- performing, prior or subsequent to said electronic authentication (200; 600), a human authentication (note paragraphs [0048] and [0077], human verification may be performed subsequently) (300; 500) including:
sending (302; 502) a request message (REQ) from the user (USR) via the user electronic device (2, 8) to the authentication electronic device (1); in which the request message (REQ) is at least one of the following message types: voice, video, text (note paragraphs [0048] and [0080], requestor provides video or audio);
analyzing (304; 504) by the authenticator (AUT) the request message (REQ) to recognize the user (USR) (note paragraphs [0048] and [0082], authenticators analyze requestor identity);
granting (305; 505) by the authenticator (AUT) a service enablement (GRNT; C-GRNT) in case of recognizing the user (USR), recording the occurred user recognition by the authentication software (4) (note paragraphs [0048] and [0083], if authenticators confirm the identity, access is granted to the user).
For claim 2, Richards teaches claim 1, further comprising:
rejecting (306; 506) by the authenticator (AUT) a service enablement in case of failure to recognize the user (USR), recording the occurred failure to recognize by the authentication software (4) (note paragraphs [0048] and [0083], if authenticators deny the identity, access is denied to the user).
For claim 3, Richards teaches claim 1, further comprising.
before sending (302) said request message (REQ), receiving (301) at the electronic user device (USR) an invitation message (INV) transmitted according to the authentication software (4) and inviting the user to perform said human authentication (300) (note paragraphs [0048] and [0079], requestor is invited to provide video or audio through a phone call or video conference).
For claim 4, Richards teaches claim 1, further comprising:
before analizing (304;504) by the authenticator (AUT) the request message (REQ), receiving (303) from the authenticator (AUT) and via the authentication software (4) an alert message (PSH) informing the authenticator (AUT) about the successful sending of the request message (REQ) (note paragraphs [0048], [0079], [0084], authenticators receive notification to perform verification of requestor’s identity).
7. Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bronstein (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0046009; hereafter “Bronstein”).
For claim 1, Bronstein teaches a method (50; 400) of authenticating a user (USR) by an authenticator (AUT), comprising:
- providing an authentication electronic device (1, 6) accessible to the authenticator (AUT) and equipped with authentication software (4) and service management software (5) (note paragraphs [0026]-[0028], server computers communicate with confirming users, include authentication instructions, and allow access to protected data);
- providing a user electronic device (2, 8) to a user (USR) (note paragraphs [0025], user devices are provided to users);
- enabling communication between the user electronic device (2, 8) and the authentication electronic device (1, 6) (note paragraphs [0044] and [0056], user devices may communicate with server computers and devices through network interfaces);
- performing electronic authentication (200; 600) by exchanging data/information between the user electronic device (2, 8) and the authentication electronic device (1, 6) (note paragraphs [0027] and [0031], user request includes security credentials);
- performing, prior or subsequent to said electronic authentication (200; 600), a human authentication (note paragraphs [0028] and [0032], human verification may be performed subsequently) (300; 500) including:
sending (302; 502) a request message (REQ) from the user (USR) via the user electronic device (2, 8) to the authentication electronic device (1); in which the request message (REQ) is at least one of the following message types: voice, video, text (note paragraphs [0038], [0050] and [0063], requestor provides video);
analyzing (304; 504) by the authenticator (AUT) the request message (REQ) to recognize the user (USR) (note paragraphs [0064] and [0076] and Fig. 3B, confirming user analyzes requesting user);
granting (305; 505) by the authenticator (AUT) a service enablement (GRNT; C-GRNT) in case of recognizing the user (USR), recording the occurred user recognition by the authentication software (4) (note paragraphs [0039], [0064] and [0078], if authenticated, access is granted to the user).
For claim 2, Bronstein teaches claim 1, further comprising:
rejecting (306; 506) by the authenticator (AUT) a service enablement in case of failure to recognize the user (USR), recording the occurred failure to recognize by the authentication software (4) (note paragraphs [0039], [0050] and [0076], if user is not confirmed, access is denied to the user).
For claim 3, Bronstein teaches claim 1, further comprising.
before sending (302) said request message (REQ), receiving (301) at the electronic user device (USR) an invitation message (INV) transmitted according to the authentication software (4) and inviting the user to perform said human authentication (300) (note paragraphs [0033], [0046] and [0059], challenge message is sent to user to provide images).
For claim 4, Bronstein teaches claim 1, further comprising:
before analizing (304;504) by the authenticator (AUT) the request message (REQ), receiving (303) from the authenticator (AUT) and via the authentication software (4) an alert message (PSH) informing the authenticator (AUT) about the successful sending of the request message (REQ) (note paragraphs [0034], [0048], [0079], [0084], notification is sent to confirming users to perform verification of requestor’s identity).
For claim 10, Bronstein teaches claim 1, wherein the service management software (5) is configured to manage the receiving and sending of data/information and/or command signals from electronic devices in connection with a service belonging to the group: accessing an Internet site (note paragraph [0026], access is managed to data stored on a secure server, i.e. access an Internet site), sharing a file, enabling access to a restricted physical area involving the opening of a locking device.
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.
8. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0366671; hereafter “Larson”).
For claim 5, Bronstein differs from the claimed invention in that they fail to teach:
wherein said electronic authentication (200; 600) comprises: sending by the authentication device (1, 6) to the user device (2, 8) a code of the type one-time-password (OTP).
Larson teaches:
wherein said electronic authentication (200; 600) comprises: sending by the authentication device (1, 6) to the user device (2, 8) a code of the type one-time-password (OTP) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138], user is authenticated by sending a one-time authentication code, i.e. one-time-password).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the one-time authentication code of Larson. It would have been obvious because a simple substitution of one known element (one-time authentication code of Larson) for another (username and password of Bronstein) would yield the predictable result of using a one-time authentication code (Larson) as one factor in a multi-factor authentication that includes other users confirming the requesting user identity (Bronstein).
For claim 6, the combination of Bronstein and Larson teaches claim 1, wherein said electronic authentication (600) is subsequent to human authentication (500) (note paragraphs [0101] and [0103] of Larson, authentication code authentication, i.e. electronic authentication, is performed in sign on sessions subsequent to live interview enrollment authentication) and wherein: granting (505) by the authenticator (AUT) the service enablement (C- GRNT) includes granting an enablement conditional on the result of the subsequent electronic authentication (600) (note paragraphs [0137]-[0138] of Larson, user is granted access as a result of one-time authentication code verification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the one-time authentication code after live interview authentication of Larson. It would have been obvious because combining prior art elements according to known methods would yield the predictable results of a multi-factor authentication that includes other users confirming the requesting user identity (Bronstein) where subsequent sessions are authenticated using a one-time authentication code (Larson).
For claim 7, the combination of Bronstein and Larson teaches claim 6, wherein said electronic authentication (600) is subsequent to human authentication (500) and wherein:
said human authentication (500) further includes providing (505) by the authenticator (AUT) to the authentication software (4) an e-mail address (E- ML) and/or telephone number of the user (USR), in case the user (SR) is recognized by the authenticator (AUT) (note paragraphs [0087]-[0088] and [0091]-[0092] of Larson, user phone number and e-mail address is provided by the authentication system in the event the user biometrics where recognized by the system); said electronic authentication (600) includes:
sending (601) by the authentication device (1, 6) to the user device (2,
8) a code of the type one-time-password (OTP) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, a one-time authentication code, i.e. one-time-password, is sent to the user device);
sending (602) to the authentication software (4) by the user (USR) said code of the type one-time-password (OTP) received at the user device (2, 8) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, user enters one-time authentication code into application for sending to the server);
recognizing (603) by the authentication software (4) said code of the one- time-password (OTP) and converting said conditional enablement into a human authentication procedure (300) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, user is authenticated with matching one-time authentication code and is then granted access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the one-time authentication code after live interview authentication of Larson. It would have been obvious because combining prior art elements according to known methods would yield the predictable results of a multi-factor authentication that includes other users confirming the requesting user identity (Bronstein) where subsequent sessions are authenticated using a one-time authentication code (Larson).
For claim 8, the combination of Bronstein and Larson teaches claim 1, wherein said electronic authentication (200; 600) comprises: sending by the authentication device (1, 6) to the user device (2, 8) a code of the type one-time-password (OTP) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, a one-time authentication code, i.e. one-time-password, is sent to the user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the one-time authentication code of Larson. It would have been obvious because a simple substitution of one known element (one-time authentication code of Larson) for another (username and password of Bronstein) would yield the predictable result of using a one-time authentication code (Larson) as one factor in a multi-factor authentication that includes other users confirming the requesting user identity (Bronstein).
For claim 9, the combination of Bronstein and Larson teaches claim 1, in which electronic authentication (200) precedes the human authentication procedure (note paragraphs [0046], [0048] and [0076]-[0077] of Bronstein, human verification may be performed subsequently) (300) and includes:
connecting (201) the electronic user device (2, 8) and the authentication device (1, 6) via a communication network (7) and activating the authentication software (4) (note paragraph [0045] of Bronstein, user device connects to authentication system and authentication software is activated upon access request);
providing (202) by the user (USR) to the authentication software (4) said e-mail address (E-ML) and/or a telephone number (note paragraph [0058] of Bronstein, device ID is provided; paragraph [0091] of Larson, device ID may be user phone number or e-mail address);
receiving (203) to an additional user device (8) and from the authentication device (1, 6) a code of the type one-time-password (OTP) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, a one-time authentication code, i.e. one-time-password, is sent to the user device);
sending (204) by the user (USR) said code of the type one-time-password (OTP) to the authentication software (4) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, user enters one-time authentication code into application for sending to the server);
recognizing (205) by the authentication software (4) said code of the type one-time-password (OTP) before starting the human authentication procedure (300) (note paragraphs [0103] and [0137]-[0138] of Larson, user is authenticated with matching one-time authentication code and is then granted access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the one-time authentication code after live interview authentication of Larson. It would have been obvious because combining prior art elements according to known methods would yield the predictable results of a multi-factor authentication that includes other users confirming the requesting user identity (Bronstein) where subsequent sessions are authenticated using a one-time authentication code (Larson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the one-time authentication code of Larson. It would have been obvious because a simple substitution of one known element (one-time authentication code of Larson) for another (username and password of Bronstein) would yield the predictable result of using a one-time authentication code (Larson) as one factor in a multi-factor authentication that includes other users confirming the requesting user identity (Bronstein).
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahidzadeh et al. (U.S. Patent 11,868,039; hereafter “Shahidzadeh”).
For claim 11, Bronstein teaches claim 1, further comprising:
defining by the authenticator (AUT) and by means of the electronic authentication device (1,6) a degree of trustworthiness associated with the user (note paragraph [0064], similarity score);
Bronstein differs from the claimed invention in that they fail to teach:
wherein said degree of trustworthiness is selectable by the authenticator (AUT) from a plurality of degrees of trustworthiness that give the user different faculties belonging to the group: enabling a single access to the service; enabling multiple accesses to the service without repeating said human authentication procedure (300); enabling access to the service for a predetermined period of time.
Shahidzadeh teaches:
wherein said degree of trustworthiness is selectable by the authenticator (AUT) from a plurality of degrees of trustworthiness that give the user different faculties belonging to the group: enabling a single access to the service; enabling multiple accesses to the service without repeating said human authentication procedure (300); enabling access to the service for a predetermined period of time (note column 11, lines 33-60 and column 23, lines 19-42, authentication may result in a level of assurance with a trust decay, which may require authentication for each transaction, repeated transactions with a single authentication or a time to live for the authentication, i.e. predetermined period of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user image confirmation of Bronstein and the level of assurance of Shahidzadeh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Bronstein and Shahidzadeh because a level of assurance in authentication would for continuous authentication in a session that reduces friction to the user while still injecting preventing measures when encountering potential threats (note column 10, lines 21-25 and 35-41 of Shahidzadeh).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kursun (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0333415) discloses authentication with a session code (note paragraph [0096] and human cross-checking of biometric authentication (note paragraphs [0257]-[0263]).
Hunt (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0162255) discloses authentication system registration using biometrics and an email address (note paragraph [0071] and a TOTP (note paragraphs [0067]-[0069]).
Tougas et al. (U.S. Patent 12,199,964) discloses an agent performing authentication of a video of a person to grant them access to their account (note Fig. 8).
Bajaj et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0312734) discloses two factor authentication to unlock a door (note paragraphs [0021] and [0027]) that includes a liveness check during biometric authentication (note paragraph [0038]).
Achyuth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0314104) discloses biometric authentication for peer to peer transfer of a file (note paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PEARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6:00 pm; Monday through Friday.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at (571)270-1138. 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.
DAVID J. PEARSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/David J Pearson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
