DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 07/14/2025 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
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 .
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 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 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.
Claims1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmann et al. (US Patent Application No. 20210051015 ) (Hereinafter Widmann) in view of Rozenberg et al. (US Patent No. 8978152) (Hereinafter Rozenberg).
As per claim 1, Widman discloses a method comprising: ‘
receiving, by a server computer, a first request message from a client computer (fig 7, para 72, the system receives an authentication token transmitted from the user and/or user device.);
responsive to receiving the first request message, inputting a plurality of static data elements (para 28, to generate an authentication token based on a combination of various components such as user-specific or user-provided data, device data),
transmitting, by the server computer to the client computer, a first response message comprising the first authentication token (fig 7, para 72, a user and/or user device may transmit an authentication token stored on the user device and/or in an application stored on the user device);
receiving, by the server computer from the client computer, a second request message comprising the first authentication token (para 81, when generating a new token for a subsequent authentication sessions);
responsive to receiving the second request message,
and
transmitting, by the server computer, a second response message comprising the second authentication token to the client computer, wherein the second authentication token is used for subsequent authentication with the server computer (see abstract, para 27, generate a unique token based on the authentication identifier, wherein the unique token is required for a subsequent authentication session, and wherein the unique token links the authentication session with the subsequent authentication session, the authentication session and the subsequent authentication session forming a chain of successive authentication sessions; and store the unique token for the subsequent authentication session).
Widman does not disclose inputting the first authentication token into a pseudorandom number generator to obtain a second pseudorandom value;
inputting the second pseudorandom value and the plurality of static data elements into the token generator function to obtain a second authentication token. However, Rozenberg disclose inputting the first authentication token into a pseudorandom number generator to obtain a second pseudorandom value (fig 3a, col 2, lines 45-62, such type of tokenization is static lookup table ("SLT") tokenization. SLT tokenization maps each possible input value (e.g., possible character combinations of a string of characters) to a particular token .. A seed value can be used to generate an SLT, for instance by generating random numbers based on the seed value for each token in the SLT) ; inputting the second pseudorandom value and the plurality of static data elements into the token generator function to obtain a second authentication token (fig 3A, cliam 1, the first token table by performing a shuffle algorithm based on a pseudo-random number generator and a seed value on the first plurality of tokens to generate a second plurality of tokens, the second token table comprising the same plurality of input character strings and the second plurality of tokens, at least one of the input character strings in the second token table mapped to a different token than the token mapped to the same input character string in the first token table).
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 teachings of Widmann and Rozenberg. The motivation would have been secure authentication via token chaining. The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
As per claim 2, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the second response message is not received by the client computer, and the method further comprises:
storing, by the server computer, the second authentication token in a database;
receiving, by the server computer, a third message comprising the first authentication token, when the server computer expects to receive the second authentication token (fig 7, para 8, the authentication chain comprising a plurality of successive authentication sessions linked by a plurality of corresponding tokens);
determining, by the server computer, that the received first authentication token is linked to the second authentication token (fig 7, para 8, the authentication chain comprising a plurality of successive authentication sessions linked by a plurality of corresponding tokens); and
responsive to determining that that the received first authentication token is linked to the second authentication token allowing the client computer to access a resource available via the server computer (fig 7, para 8, the authentication chain comprising a plurality of successive authentication sessions linked by a plurality of corresponding tokens).
As per claim 3, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Rozenberg discloses wherein determining that the received first authentication token is linked to the stored second authentication token comprises:
inputting, the received first authentication token into the pseudorandom number generator to obtain the second pseudorandom value (fig 3a, col 2, lines 45-62, such type of tokenization is static lookup table ("SLT") tokenization. SLT tokenization maps each possible input value (e.g., possible character combinations of a string of characters) to a particular token .. A seed value can be used to generate an SLT, for instance by generating random numbers based on the seed value for each token in the SLT) ; and
inputting the second pseudorandom value and the plurality of static data elements into the token generator function to obtain the second authentication token (fig 3a, col 2, lines 45-62, such type of tokenization is static lookup table ("SLT") tokenization. SLT tokenization maps each possible input value (e.g., possible character combinations of a string of characters) to a particular token .. A seed value can be used to generate an SLT, for instance by generating random numbers based on the seed value for each token in the SLT) ; and
determining that the obtained second authentication token to the stored second authentication token are equal, thereby determining that the received first authentication token is linked to the stored second authentication token (fig 3A, cliam 1, the first token table by performing a shuffle algorithm based on a pseudo-random number generator and a seed value on the first plurality of tokens to generate a second plurality of tokens, the second token table comprising the same plurality of input character strings and the second plurality of tokens, at least one of the input character strings in the second token table mapped to a different token than the token mapped to the same input character string in the first token table).
As per claim 4, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the static data elements comprise a device identifier for the client computer (para 3, one of a device portion).
As per claim 5, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the static data elements further comprise a user identifier for a user of the client computer (para 3, user portion).
As per claim 6, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the static data elements further comprise a resource provider identifier associated with a resource provider computer which the client computer is interacting (para 14, the new authentication token is required for authenticating a subsequent authentication session, and wherein the new authentication token is configured to link the subsequent authentication session to the chain of successive authentication sessions.).
As per claim 7, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the first request message and the second request message are received by the server computer via a resource provider computer (fig 1, para 45, entity system, a resource management application providing access to a resource location maintained by the entity system).
As per claim 8, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Rozenberg discloses further comprising: generating, by the server computer, the first pseudorandom value by inputting an initialization vector into the pseudorandom number generator (fig 3A, claim 1, the first token table by performing a shuffle algorithm based on a pseudo-random number generator and a seed value on the first plurality of tokens to generate a second plurality of tokens, the second token table comprising the same plurality of input character strings and the second plurality of tokens, at least one of the input character strings in the second token table mapped to a different token than the token mapped to the same input character string in the first token table).
As per claim 9, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Rozenberg discloses wherein the initialization vector is 32 bytes of random data (fig 3a, col 2, lines 45-62, such type of tokenization is static lookup table ("SLT") tokenization. SLT tokenization maps each possible input value (e.g., possible character combinations of a string of characters) to a particular token .. A seed value can be used to generate an SLT, for instance by generating random numbers based on the seed value for each token in the SLT) .
As per claim 10, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses, wherein the server computer is a first server computer, and wherein the method further comprises: synchronizing, by the first server computer, the first authentication token and the second authentication token with a second server computer, wherein the first server computer and the second server computer perform the same functions (para 36, the entity may employ additional computer systems, such as authentication servers).
As per claim 11, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses, wherein the first request message is an enrollment request message comprising enrollment data of a user associated with the client computer (para 13, initiating an authentication session with a user device associated with a requested interaction; requesting an authentication token from the user device during the authentication session,.
As per claim 12, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the client computer is a mobile phone (fig 1).
As per claim 13, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the first authentication token and the second authentication token are stored by an SDK on the client computer (fig 2, 3).
As per claim 14, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the SDK is part of a resource provider application on the client computer (fig 2, 3).
As per claim 15, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above.
As per claim 16, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 15, above. In addition, Widmann discloses further comprising a random number generation module comprising the pseudorandom number generator and a token generation module for generating the first and second authentication tokens on the non-transitory computer readable medium (fogs 1-4, para 84)
As per claim 17, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 15, above. In addition, Widmann discloses a database for storing the first and second authentication tokens and the static data elements.
As per claim 18, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Widmann discloses transmitting, by a client computer to a server computer, a first request message, wherein the server computer inputs a plurality of static data elements and a first pseudorandom value into a token generator function to produce a first authentication token, and transmits, to the client computer, a first response message comprising the first authentication token (fig 7 and 8).
As per claim 19, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 18, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the second response message is not received by the client computer, and the server computer stores the second authentication token in a database, and the method further comprises: transmitting, by the client computer to the server computer, a third message comprising the first authentication token, when the server computer expects to receive the second authentication token, and the server computer then determines that the received first authentication token is linked to the second authentication token, and allows the client computer to access a resource available via the server computer (fig 7 and 8, para 14, the new authentication token is required for authenticating a subsequent authentication session, and wherein the new authentication token is configured to link the subsequent authentication session to the chain of successive authentication sessions.) ).
As per claim 20, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 18, above. In addition, Widmann discloses wherein the first and second request messages are received by the server computer from the client computer via a resource provider computer, wherein the client computer seeks to access a resource provided by the resource provider computer (para 14, the new authentication token is required for authenticating a subsequent authentication session, and wherein the new authentication token is configured to link the subsequent authentication session to the chain of successive authentication sessions.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bovalino et al (US 10999074 B2) discloses The endpoint device can store a token pair in non-volatile local storage. To authenticate, the endpoint device can provide its stored token pair to the authentication server, which can determine whether authentication succeeds based on the states of the tokens in the token pair. After successful authentication, the authentication server can provide a new token pair to the endpoint device and advance the token states along the normal sequence. When the endpoint device confirms receipt of the new token pair, which replaces the previous token pair, the authentication server can advance the state of the tokens again.
Savolainen et al (US 20180205545 A1) discloses storing a first token and a second token; obtain a first hash value based at least in part on the first token and the second token, and to cause the apparatus to participate in a security procedure, based at least in part on the first hash, with a second apparatus.
Dunjic et al, (US 20200382486 A1) discloses linking token.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI whose telephone number is (571)272-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, Carl G Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights