DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Restriction Election filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 1-12 are canceled while claims 13-26 are pending and are examined hereon.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II of claims 13-26 filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Allowable Subject Matter
The present invention is directed to controlling access to resources of systems. If the rejection rendered hereon are properly overcome, the claims may become patentable as the prior art made of record alone or in combination do not disclose most of the independent claims and applicant should consider incorporating elements of the dependent claims in to the independent claims.
Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to combine the above missing elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 13-20 are directed to a “Method” (Process). Claims 21-26 are directed to “A system, comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory…” (Machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of access control to resources, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions, and managing relationships (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to determining received data from users demonstrating possession of verified credentials before grant access to the users to resources. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 13, as similarly as 21,
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
receive, from a computing device, a first request to access a first resource system;
send, to the computing device, first data representing a first identifier corresponding to the first resource system;
receive, from a user device, second data representing the first identifier and a second request for authentication to access the first resource system;
send, to the user device, a third request to demonstrate possession of verified credentials issued by a trusted issuer system;
receive, in response to the third request, third data representing a verifiable proof of possession of the verified credentials;
determine that the third data demonstrates possession of the verified credentials; and
in response to determining that the third data demonstrates possession of the verified credentials, grant the computing device access to the first resource system.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of access control to resources. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-20 and 22-26 further describe the abstract idea of access control to resources. That is, although claims 14-20 and 22-26 recite further functional steps using the additional elements of: first system component corresponding to the first resource system, a second system, user device or the computing device, second system component corresponding to a second resource system different from the first resource system, a trusted issuer system and a first key and second resource system different from the first resource system, the additional element are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 23 recites “the first identifier in response to determining that the third data indicates the first identifier.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although both clams 13 and 21 recite “first data representing a first identifier corresponding to the first resource system” and claims 15 and 23 recites “a first identifier corresponding to at least one of the user device or the computing device,” it is unclear as to which “the first identifier” of claims 15 and 23 refers to. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim 16 is also rejected as it depend on claim 15.
Claims 19 and 26 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recite “the first identifier” that makes the claim unclear as to which first identifier the element refer to.
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.
Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhunay (US 2025/0007911 A1).
With respect to claims 13 and 21, Dhunay discloses: a computer-implemented method and a system, comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: (Fig. 1; Par. [0171] “The embodiments of the devices, systems and methods described herein may be implemented in a combination of both hardware and software. These embodiments may be implemented on programmable computers, each computer including at least one processor, a data storage system (including volatile memory or non-volatile memory or other data storage elements or a combination thereof), and at least one communication interface.”)
receive, from a computing device (“primary client device”), a first request to access a first resource system; (Par. [0132] “the primary client device may be configured to transmit a request to access to networked computing resources at the service provider system 140 (FIG. 1 ).”)
send, to the computing device, first data (“digital indicia or unique URL”) representing a first identifier corresponding to the first resource system; (Pars. [0100] “At operation 406, the service provider system 140 may transmit a signal representing a passwordless credential verification request to the client system 160. The passwordless credential verification request may be encoded as a digital indicia, and may be displayed on a display device of the client system 160.” [0101] “The digital indicia may be displayed at a primary client device of the client system 160.”)
receive, from a user device (“secondary client device”), second data (“discrete attributes”) representing the first identifier; (Figs. 4, 6B; Pars. [0124] “the client system 160 Upon receiving user input, at operation 416, representing which discrete attributes may be shared with the service provider system, the client system 160 (e.g., secondary client device) at operation 418 may transmit the user selected discrete attributes associated with digital credentials to the service provider system 140 for passwordless credential verification.”)
send, to the user device, a third request to demonstrate possession of verified credentials (Figs. 4, 7; Par. [0109] “At operation 414, the credentials system 100 may transmit, to the client system 160, a signal representing the one or more digital credentials identified as suitable for responding to the credential verification query. For example, the secondary client device may receive a signal representing the one or more digital credentials identified for formulating a response to the credential verification query.”)
issued by a trusted issuer system; (Pars. [0030], [0142] “The at least one digital credential may be issued by an issuer device separate from the service provider system”)
receive, in response to the third request, third data representing a verifiable proof of possession of the verified credentials; (Figs. 4, 6-8; Pars. [0104]-[0106] “For example, at operation 410, the secondary client device may transmit a request to the credentials system 100 to determine and compile a subset of digital credentials for replying to the credential verification challenge query.” [0119] “At operation 416, the secondary client device may generate a user interface 800, illustrated at FIG. 8 , including a confirmation prompt interface 802 for receiving user input on which discrete attributes may be shared with the service provider system 140.”)
determine that the third data demonstrates possession of the verified credentials; (Fig. 9; Pars. [0125] “At operation 418, the client system 160 may generate a confirmation user interface 900, illustrated in FIG. 9, with a prompt validating that the request to transmit discrete attributes associated with suitable digital credentials for responding to a credential verification challenge query is successful.”) and
in response to determining that the third data demonstrates possession of the verified credentials, grant the computing device access to the first resource system. (Fig. 4; Pars. [0129] “The service provider system 140 may thus grant access to the computing resource based on the received digital credential. In the above-described example of a medical clinic portal website, the service provider system 140 may grant, to the client system 160, access to the medical clinic portal website.” [0130])
Dhunay does not explicitly disclose a second request for authentication to access the first resource system.
However, this is simply substituting one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the step of requesting for authentication to access the first resource system subsequent to the first request (Par. [0132] “the primary client device may be configured to transmit a request to access to networked computing resources at the service provider system 140 (FIG. 1 ).” [0129]-[0130]) which is simply repeating steps of request for authentication to access resources at systems.
Therefore, 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 to substitute the first request with a second, third… etc., request to accomplish the same result of allowing access to users’ request based on verification of users’ credentials before allowing access to the users. ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Panasyuk et al. (US 2024/0171587 A1) discloses in response to determining that the third data demonstrates possession of the verified credentials, generating fourth data representing an authenticated token indicating the grant of access to the first resource system; (Par. [0052] “In step 310, an access token is generated. The access token indicates the service is authenticated and the determined level of access.”)
PGPub Avetisov et al. (US 2020/0351660 A1) discloses determining that the third data represents a zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) of possession of the verified credentials; (Par. [0274] “the mobile device 101 may transmit the signed token as results for a zero-knowledge proof as the signature may be verified based on the corresponding public key associated with the Net ID 271”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights