DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/02/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 15 and 19 are currently amended; claims 14, 16, 18, and 20 are canceled; and claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1-13, 15, 17, and 19 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
The non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejection to claims 1-20 is withdrawn as a terminal disclaimer has been filed and approved.
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 06/02/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 13 and 17: “Each of independent claims 13 and 17 have been amended to specify that the first user device accesses the account at both the first location at the first time and the second location at the second time. This feature was previously claimed in claims 14 and 18, respectively.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., “the first user device accesses the account at both the first location at the first time and the second location at the second time”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner submits, arguendo, that Morton in view of Ben-Ayed does teach “determining that an account is accessed on a first user device using a set of authentication credentials at a second location and at a second time, the second location being greater than a threshold distance from a first location that the account is accessed using the set of authentication credentials at a first time, the second time being subsequent to the first time.” Paragraph [0007] of Moreton describes “a system for authenticating a user with position-based credentials may comprise one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations. The operations may comprise receiving a login request associated with the user from a first user interface device, receiving a first location associated with the first user interface device, and receiving a second location associated with a second user interface device. The second user interface device may have an identity associated with an identity of the first user interface device. The operations may further comprise, when a Lebesgue distance between the first location and the second location is below a first threshold: authenticating the user; when the Lebesgue distance is above the first threshold and below a second, larger threshold: prompting the first interface device for a first credential, and when the Lebesgue distance is above the second threshold: prompting the first interface device for a second credential.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this corresponds to and teaches the instant claim limitation. The Examiner further submits that the teaches of Paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0062] are also relevant to the aforementioned claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 13 and 17: “Amended claims 13 and 17 require determining that the same first user device accesses an account from a second location exceeding a threshold distance from a first location where that same first user device previously accessed the account, and responsive to said determination, automatically revoking the authentication status of the first user device. Toth does not teach this feature.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., “the same first user device accesses an account from a second location exceeding a threshold distance from a first location where that same first user device previously accessed the account, and responsive to said determination, automatically revoking the authentication status of the first user device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 13 and 17: “Accordingly, Toth does not teach or suggest comparing a single device's successive geographic access locations against a threshold distance to trigger automatic deauthentication, and therefore does not cure the acknowledged deficiencies of Moreton and Ben Ayed.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., “comparing a single device's successive geographic access locations against a threshold distance to trigger automatic deauthentication”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 14 and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of canceled claims 14 and 18.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreton et al. (US 2019/0281458; Hereinafter “Moreton”) in view of Ben Ayed (US 8,625,796: Hereinafter “Ayed”).
Regarding claim 13, Moreton teaches a method for automatic user device deauthentication comprising: determining that an account is accessed on a first user device using a set of authentication credentials at a second location and at a second time, the second location being greater than a threshold distance from a first location that the account is accessed using the set of authentication credentials at a first time, the second time being subsequent to the first time (Moreton: Para. [0007], a system for authenticating a user with position-based credentials may comprise one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations. The operations may comprise receiving a login request associated with the user from a first user interface device, receiving a first location associated with the first user interface device, and receiving a second location associated with a second user interface device. The second user interface device may have an identity associated with an identity of the first user interface device. The operations may further comprise, when a Lebesgue distance between the first location and the second location is below a first threshold: authenticating the user; when the Lebesgue distance is above the first threshold and below a second, larger threshold: prompting the first interface device for a first credential, and when the Lebesgue distance is above the second threshold: prompting the first interface device for a second credential. Para. [0044], Para. [0045], Para. [0062]); and
Moreton does not explicitly teach responsive to said determination, automatically revoking the authentication status of the first user device to access the account.
In an analogous art, Ben Ayed teaches responsive to said determination, automatically revoking the authentication status of the first user device to access the account (Ayed: Col. 2, Lines 16-43, Col. 7, Lines 8-26, In step 38, if the current location is outside a predetermined geo-location, access terminal 10 performs the following: log out, revoke authentication, revoke a user token, cancel a transaction, play a long sound file, lock a device, play a long sound file, issue an audible alert, call a mobile phone and issue a message, encrypt data, delete data, delete said second application, clear memory, send an email message comprising the current location information, send a Short Message Service message comprising the current location information, send a message comprising the current location information to a remote server.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Ayed with the system and method of Moreton to include responsive to said determination, automatically revoking the authentication status of the first user device to access the account because this functionality provides tiered authentication using position-based credentials (Moreton: Para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 15, Moreton, in combination with Ayed, teaches the method of claim 13, teaches wherein the account is accessed at first time and the first location immediately prior to the account being accessed at the second time and the second location (Moreton: Para. [0064], In certain aspects, the at least one distance threshold may be sent concurrently with the credentials and/or the first identity and/or the second identity (or immediately after or immediately before). Alternatively, the at least one distance may be sent separately from the credentials, the first identity, and the second identity. For example, the processor may prompt the user for the at least one distance threshold after receiving the credentials and/or the first identity and/or the second identity.).
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 1-12, Claims 1-12 are allowed over the cited prior art.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art includes Moreton et al. (US 2019/0281458; Hereinafter “Moreton”) in view of Ben Ayed (US 8,625,796: Hereinafter “Ayed”). However, none of Moreton or Ayed teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claim 1. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggest the steps of “a method for remote user device deauthentication comprising: determining that a second user device has accessed an account from a second location at a second time, the second location being greater than a threshold distance from a first location at which the second use device accessed the account at a first time, the second time being subsequent to the first time, the second user device being authenticated to access the account at the first time; based on said determination, prompting a first user device to perform a security review, the security review comprising: generating a list of authenticated devices, each of the authenticated devices having access to the account, wherein the list of authenticated devices comprises the second user device; communicating the list of authenticated devices to the first user device; and receiving an instruction from the first user device to deauthenticate the second user device; and revoking an authentication status of the second user device to access the account.” As a result, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights