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 19/069,775 filed on 3/4/2025 has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2025, 5/2/2025 and 12/8/2025 are 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, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12-13 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,107. 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, 12-13 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,107 contain every element of the claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
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 (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 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OS et al. (US 2017/0339151 hereinafter Van Os) in view of Ziraknejad et al. (US 10,701,067 hereinafter Ziraknejad).
Regarding claim 1, Van Os discloses a method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving a proximity authorization request from an authorization requesting device in proximity to the electronic device, the proximity authorization request for authorization (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0221]-[0228], [0419]; i.e. receiving an authorization request to proceed with an action from a requesting device wherein the authenticating device is selected from a plurality of devices based on the proximity of the authenticating device to the requesting device) using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services;
presenting a local authorization request on a user interface in response to the proximity authorization request (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0228]-0236]; i.e. displaying a request for authorization to proceed with the action on the requesting device);
receiving in response to the local authorization request, user credentials for authorization of the authorization requesting device, the user credentials associated with an anonymous user identifier (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0228]-[0239], [0361]; i.e. receiving biometric information, fingerprint and password for user authentication);
transmitting, in response to the user credentials, a server authorization request to an identity management server (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0343]-[0347]; i.e. sending information to one or more financial institutions to verify payment credentials and/or receive authorization to complete the transaction);
receiving, in response to the server authorization request, an authorization response from the identity management server, the authorization response associated with the anonymous user identifier (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0234], [0343]-[0347]; i.e. receiving authorization from the financial institution); and
transmitting the authorization response to the authorization requesting device, thereby allowing the authorization requesting device to be authorized using the single sign-on service (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0239], [0270]-[0271], [0343]-[0347]; i.e. returning the authorization to the requesting device).
Van Os does not explicitly disclose using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services.
However, Ziraknejad discloses using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services (FIG. 1A-C, col. 12, lines 33-col. 13, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Van Os and Ziraknejad in order to increase security of accessing secured network locations or services from mobile devices by using proximity devices as an additional authentication factor (Ziraknejad, col. 1, line 32-col. 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 2, Van Os in view of Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, determining the proximity to the electronic device by comparing a received signal strength for the authorization requesting device to a requisite signal strength threshold (Van Os, FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Os in view of Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the authorization response includes at least one of an authorization code or an identity token based on the anonymous user identifier (Ziraknejad, col. 7, line 65-col. 8, line14, col. 22, lines 35-64).
Regarding claim 5, Van Os in view of Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the proximity authorization request is associated with an application running on the authorization requesting device, wherein the application is configured using a developer identifier based at least in part on the anonymous user identifier (Van Os, ¶ [0248]-[0251]).
Regarding claim 7, Van Os in view of Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising discovering the authorization requesting device by receiving an advertisement from the authorization requesting device, the advertisement based on a discovery protocol (Van Os, FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Van Os discloses a computing device, comprising:
one or more memories (FIG. 1A-B); and
one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to perform operations comprising (FIG. 1A-B):
receiving a proximity authorization request from an authorization requesting device in proximity to the computing device, the proximity authorization request for authorization (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0221]-[0228], [0419]; i.e. receiving an authorization request to proceed with an action from a requesting device wherein the authenticating device is selected from a plurality of devices based on the proximity of the authenticating device to the requesting device) using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services;
presenting a local authorization request on a user interface in response to the proximity authorization request (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0228]-0236]; i.e. displaying a request for authorization to proceed with the action on the requesting device);
receiving in response to the local authorization request, user credentials for authorization of the authorization requesting device, the user credentials associated with an anonymous user identifier (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0228]-[0239], [0361]; i.e. receiving biometric information, fingerprint and password for user authentication);
transmitting, in response to the user credentials, a server authorization request to an identity management server (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0343]-[0347]; i.e. sending information to one or more financial institutions to verify payment credentials and/or receive authorization to complete the transaction);
receiving, in response to the server authorization request, an authorization response from the identity management server, the authorization response associated with the anonymous user identifier (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0234], [0343]-[0347]; i.e. receiving authorization from the financial institution); and
transmitting the authorization response to the authorization requesting device, thereby allowing the authorization requesting device to be authorized using the single sign-on service (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0239], [0270]-[0271], [0343]-[0347]; i.e. returning the authorization to the requesting device).
Van Os does not explicitly disclose using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services.
However, Ziraknejad discloses using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services (FIG. 1A-C, col. 12, lines 33-col. 13, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Van Os and Ziraknejad in order to increase security of accessing secured network locations or services from mobile devices by using proximity devices as an additional authentication factor (Ziraknejad, col. 1, line 32-col. 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, Van Os discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a proximity authorization request from an authorization requesting device in proximity to the computing device, the proximity authorization request for authorization (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0221]-[0228], [0419]; i.e. receiving an authorization request to proceed with an action from a requesting device wherein the authenticating device is selected from a plurality of devices based on the proximity of the authenticating device to the requesting device) using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services;
present a local authorization request on a user interface in response to the proximity authorization request (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0228]-0236]; i.e. displaying a request for authorization to proceed with the action on the requesting device);
receive in response to the local authorization request, user credentials for authorization of the authorization requesting device, the user credentials associated with an anonymous user identifier (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0228]-[0239], [0361]; i.e. receiving biometric information, fingerprint and password for user authentication);
transmit, in response to the user credentials, a server authorization request to an identity management server (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0343]-[0347]; i.e. sending information to one or more financial institutions to verify payment credentials and/or receive authorization to complete the transaction);
receive, in response to the server authorization request, an authorization response from the identity management server, the authorization response associated with the anonymous user identifier (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0234], [0343]-[0347]; i.e. receiving authorization from the financial institution); and
transmit the authorization response to the authorization requesting device, thereby allowing the authorization requesting device to be authorized using the single sign-on service (FIG. 6, 7A-L, 8A-M, ¶ [0239], [0270]-[0271], [0343]-[0347]; i.e. returning the authorization to the requesting device).
Van Os does not explicitly disclose using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services.
However, Ziraknejad discloses using a single sign-on service that provides authorization for multiple services (FIG. 1A-C, col. 12, lines 33-col. 13, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Van Os and Ziraknejad in order to increase security of accessing secured network locations or services from mobile devices by using proximity devices as an additional authentication factor (Ziraknejad, col. 1, line 32-col. 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 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 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN OS et al. (US 2017/0339151 hereinafter Van Os) in view of Ziraknejad et al. (US 10,701,067 hereinafter Ziraknejad) and further in view of Crespo et al. (US 2007/0299920 hereinafter Crespo).
Regarding claim 3, Van Os in view of Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 1.
Van Os in view of Ziraknejad does not explicitly disclose wherein the anonymous user identifier is a machine-generated identifier corresponding to a user email address.
However, Crespo discloses wherein the anonymous user identifier is a machine-generated identifier corresponding to a user email address (FIG. 7, ¶ [0002]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Van Os and Ziraknejad in order to provide user options to communicate with the service providers anonymously or not (Crespo, ¶ [0002]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Van Os in view of Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the proximity authorization request comprises identifier (FIG. 9A-D, , 10A-B).
Van Os in view of Ziraknejad does not explicitly disclose a developer identifier associated with the anonymous user identifier.
However, Crespo discloses a developer identifier associated with the anonymous user identifier (FIG. 7, ¶ [0002]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Van Os and Ziraknejad in order to provide user options to communicate with the service providers anonymously or not (Crespo, ¶ [0002]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 3 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