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 .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8583932 to Furukawa in view of US 20130117824 to Naslund.
Regarding claim 1,
Furukawa teaches a computer-implemented method performed by an authentication system for authenticating a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving, from a third-party entity system, a request to authenticate a user, wherein the request to authenticate the user includes a set of credentials provided by the user as part of a login procedure for an application associated with the third-party entity system (receiving input including credential to authenticate user at device 30 of fig. 8; see col. 15-16);
generating an authentication identifier based on the set of credentials and a cryptographically secure hash function (col. 15-16, fig. 8, generation of ID based on credentials and hash function);
obtain a stored authentication identifier (col. 15-16, col: 17:1-15, obtaining stored ID);
comparing the authentication identifier to the stored authentication identifier (col 16:25-67; col. 17:1-15); and
communicating an authentication decision to the third-party entity system based at least in part on said comparing, wherein the authentication decision indicates an approval of the user based on a determination that the authentication identifier matches the stored authentication identifier, wherein the authentication decision indicates a denial of the user based on a determination that the authentication identifier does not match the stored authentication identifier (col. 16:25-67, output of authentication decision; col. 17:1-15).
Furukawa fails to teach but Naslund teaches:
creating a decryption key based on the set of credentials (¶ 24, generation of decryption key based on credentials; ¶ 13, access request including credentials); and
decrypting client authentication data using the decryption key to obtain a stored authentication identifier (¶ 28, decrypting client data using decryption key to obtain stored ID);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Naslund. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Naslund would have been advantageous in terms of preserving privacy and the provision of user authentication, access control, and accountability capabilities (Naslund, abstract, ¶ 11).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa and Naslund in view of US 20180183608 to Koyun.
Regarding claim 2,
Furukawa fails to teach but Koyun teaches:
wherein the decryption key is assigned an expiration period, wherein the authentication decision indicates a denial of the user based on a determination that the expiration period is expired (¶ 90-92, denial based on expired decryption key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Koyun. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Koyun would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating secure transmission of data objects (Koyun, ¶ 4-12).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights