DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in reply to an application filed on 02/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under
the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-20 are 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. Claims 16-20 are apparatus claims, but they depend on claim 15, which is an article claim. 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. For the purpose of examination, examiner assumed claims 16-20 are article claims.
4.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,084 in view of Popa as mentioned below, wherein the claims of the patent No. 12,238,084 do not recite: transmitting one or more identifiers of a communications device to a client server. Popa teaches a device may send a join request to a controlling device [0091-0093], wherein the controlling device may send a message including an identifier and authentication signature of the requesting device to an authentication server, wherein the authentication server may authenticate the identifier and the signature [0094] and fig. 3
5.
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 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Popa et al. US 2013/0294284 (hereinafter Popa).
Regarding claim 1 Popa teaches a communications device, comprising:
a processor coupled to at least one memory device adapted to:
invoke an authentication operation associated with a client application implemented on the communications device (Popa teaches a system may implement a plurality of devices [0025], wherein a server may authenticate one of the devices that requests joining a network [0050], [0059-0060]);
determine whether the authentication operation is capable of utilizing a cellular communications network (Popa teaches the network may be implemented as a cellular network and determining whether the cellular network can allow more devices to join [0083]);
In response to determining that the authentication operation can be performed using the cellular communications network, utilize the cellular communications network to transmit one or more identifiers of the communications device to a client server (Popa teaches the network may be implemented as a cellular network and determining whether the cellular network can allow more devices to join [0083], wherein a device may send a join request to a controlling device [0091-0093], wherein the controlling device may send a message including an identifier and authentication signature of the requesting device to an authentication server, wherein the authentication server may authenticate the identifier and the signature [0094] and fig. 3); and
receive an outcome of the authentication operation from the client server (Popa teaches a server may authenticate the requesting device, and send a successful authentication message to the controlling device [0094-0095] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2 Popa teaches the communications device of claim 1, wherein the one or more identifiers include an internet protocol address corresponding to the communications device [0053].
Regarding claim 7 Popa teaches the communications device of claim 1, wherein the outcome of the authentication operation indicates at least one of an approval of a transaction involving the communications device, a disapproval of a transaction involving the communications device, a credit limit associated with a subscriber, or a remaining balance associated with a subscriber (Popa teaches the authentication server may send a successful authentication message that includes a public or symmetric key of the requesting device that has been encrypted using the group key associated with the ARA network, however if the authentication server fails to authenticate the identity of the requesting device, the authentication server may send a failed authentication message to the controlling device, indicating that the authentication is failed [0094-0095]).
In response to Claim 8: Rejected for the same reason as claim 1
In response to Claim 9: Rejected for the same reason as claim 2
In response to Claim 14: Rejected for the same reason as claim 7
In response to Claim 15: Rejected for the same reason as claim 1
In response to Claim 16: Rejected for the same reason as claim 2
6.
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 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 of this title, 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, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa as mentioned above, and further in view of McClement et al. US 2016/0112872 (hereinafter McClement).
Regarding claim 3 Popa teaches the communications device of claim 1. Popa does not teach one or more identifiers are stored in the at least one memory and include one or more of an international mobile subscriber identity of the communications device, an international mobile equipment identity of the communications device, a mobile station international subscriber directory number of the communications device, or an integrated circuit card identification of the communications device. McClement substantially teaches an authentication request may include an IMSI of a SIM card (col. 11, lin. 21-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Popa such that the invention further includes one or more identifiers are stored in the at least one memory and include one or more of an international mobile subscriber identity of the communications device, an international mobile equipment identity of the communications device, a mobile station international subscriber directory number of the communications device, or an integrated circuit card identification of the communications device. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure that only legitimate and authorized subscriber can access cellular network.
In response to Claim 10: Rejected for the same reason as claim 3
In response to Claim 17: Rejected for the same reason as claim 3
7.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa as mentioned above, and further in view of Mahaffey et al. US 2014/0189808 (hereinafter Mahaffey).
Regarding claim 4 Popa teaches the communications device of claim 1, wherein the processor coupled to the at least one memory device is further adapted to. Popa does not teach receive one or more redirect parameters from a client server; in response to receiving the one or more redirect parameters, generate a verification fingerprint associated with a communications device; and transmit the verification fingerprint to the client server. Mahaffey substantially teaches a server may send a challenge to a client, wherein the client may use a private key to sign the challenge such as generating a signature and forward the signature to the server, wherein the server may verify the signature [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Popa such that the invention further includes receive one or more redirect parameters from a client server; in response to receiving the one or more redirect parameters, generate a verification fingerprint associated with a communications device; and transmit the verification fingerprint to the client server. One would have been motivated to do so to offer a strong security by making it difficult for attackers to compromise authentication even if the exchange is intercepted and to prevent unauthorized access the cellular network.
Regarding claim 5 Popa as modified teaches the communications device of claim 4, wherein the verification fingerprint includes a hash-based message authentication code (Mahaffey: [0063]).
Regarding claim 6 Popa as modified teaches the communications device of claim 4, wherein the outcome is determined based in part on the verification fingerprint (Popa teaches the authentication server may authenticate the identifier and the signature [0094] and fig. 3).
In response to Claim 11: Rejected for the same reason as claim 4
In response to Claim 12: Rejected for the same reason as claim 5
In response to Claim 13: Rejected for the same reason as claim 6
In response to Claim 18: Rejected for the same reason as claim 4
In response to Claim 19: Rejected for the same reason as claim 5
In response to Claim 20: Rejected for the same reason as claim 6
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYOUB ALATA whose telephone number is (313)446-6541. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 Est.
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 fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYOUB ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights