DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 21, 40 and 41 have been amended. Claims 21-23, 26-29, 31-38 and 40-41are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that according to Smith an email message is transmitted to an email address—not to a specific device such as a smartphone or computer. The email contains a URL, and any device with access to the recipient’s email account can retrieve it, meaning the message is associated with a digital account rather than particular hardware. Smith’s “placeholder user account record” authenticates the recipient through password verification but does not associate or identify any specific recipient device. Smith focuses on authenticating the person via email and password through a delivery server, not verifying or targeting specific hardware, and therefore does not support device-specific delivery, identification, or push notifications directed to particular recipient hardware [Arg./Rem. page 7-9].
Although, Smith teaches user sharing a document with a specific recipient and an URL is generated specific to the recipient and specific to the subject document, however, Smith does not teach sending the URL to a specific smart phone associated with the recipient. In current rejection, Examiner relies on Agrawal to teach this limitation. See the rejection infra.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 40 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21, 40 and 41 recite “…transmitting a first push notification from a server to the smartphone uniquely associated with the recipient associated with the URL;…”, in line 9, 11 and 11, respectively, which appears a typographical error and likely intended to recite “…transmitting a first push notification from a server to the smartphone uniquely associated with the recipient and associated with the URL;…”. (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-23, 26, 33, 35-38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0189763 (Smith et al.) in view of US 20050266835(Agrawal et al.).
Regarding Claim 21, Smith teaches a method comprising: uniquely associating a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and a resource and a recipient ([¶ 0037], generates a URL specific to the recipient and specific to the subject document [i.e., the resource]), the URL for use in accessing the resource when authorised by the recipient ([¶ 0015], secure web-based messaging according to a "push" paradigm is augmented by specific, intended recipient authentication. In particular, a document can be sent to a specified, intended recipient and the recipient is authenticated prior to delivering the document to the recipient. [¶ 0018], a URL by which the recipient can download the delivered document); providing from a first user to the recipient the URL for sharing the resource ([¶¶ 0028-0029], user of sending computer, who is sometimes called the sender, sends the subject document and data identifying the user of receiving computer, who is sometimes called the recipient, to a delivery server …the delivery server sends an e-mail message to the recipient and the e-mail message is directed to receiving computer …includes a personalized universal resource locator (URL) with instructions to the recipient to use the URL to retrieve the subject document);
receiving a request for access to the resource relying upon the URL, the request received via a communication network ([¶ 0038], the recipient supplies the URL [i.e., a request for access to the resource relying upon the URL] of the notification e-mail to a web browser which sends the URL to Web server of delivery server. Web server forwards the URL to delivery server logic which parses the URL identifies both the recipient and the subject document from the parsed URL);
upon receiving the request for access to the resource, transmitting a first push notification from a server to the computer associated with the recipient associated with the URL ([¶¶ 0038-0039], Delivery server logic retrieves the delivery parameters associated with the subject document as specified by the sender and determines that the sender requested recipient authentication by delivery server prior to completing delivery to the recipient. …delivery server logic requests and requires a user account password from the recipient before making the subject document available for download. If the authentication is required, delivery server logic implements a dialog with the recipient. …delivery server prompts [i.e., push notification] the recipient for the secret information specified by the sender);
receiving a reply based on the first push notification; and in dependence upon the reply, allowing access to the resource via the communications network ([¶ 0040], If the secret information supplied by the recipient is accurate, delivery server proceeds to step 316 in which the recipient is required to supply information regarding a new account to be created for the recipient. Such information includes, for example, a new password by which the recipient can be authenticated in the future. [¶¶ 0042-0043], Once the recipient has provided the requisite information for creating a new user account, …delivery server logic sends a verification e-mail to the recipient at the e-mail address specified by the sender. Delivery server logic includes a second URL which specifies the recipient and the subject document and which is generated by URL generator. This second e-mail message containing a URL required to access the subject document adds further security. …the recipient submits the URL from the second e-mail message … delivery server logic parses the URL to identify the recipient and the subject document. sends a confirmation e-mail message to the recipient. [¶ 0045], After sending the confirmation e-mail, …the recipient is permitted to download the subject document),
wherein the URL is uniquely associated with the recipient ([¶ 0037], generates a URL specific to the recipient and specific to the subject document. [¶ 0043], the recipient submits the URL from the second e-mail message …delivery server logic parses the URL to identify the recipient and the subject document).
Although, Smith teaches identifying the user of receiving computer [¶ 0028], however, Smith does not explicitly teach, but Agrawal teaches associating a smartphone with a recipient, the smartphone associated with only one recipient; …the smartphone is uniquely associated with the recipient ([¶ 0025], allows users of mobile devices to share content with other users via mobile messaging and other similar techniques. The user identifies the friend using a mobile device. The user's friend then receives a content link via a message. The friend can then choose to act upon the received message by loading the URL. [Fig. 6, ¶ 0059] a routine 600 performed at the content sender device begins at block 602 with the content sender device requesting content. … At block 604, the routine receives and displays the requested content, including a link that enables the content to be shared with a friend. … At block 606, in response to a user selecting the "send to friend" link within the content page or application, the routine enables the link, … At block 608, the content sender device receives a completed user input form from the share content application. An example is illustrated in FIG. 11. …At block 610, the user enters the phone number (MSISDN) and, optionally, the name of the friend and submits the form to the share content application. Since, Agrawal sending the shared content URL to a user’s mobile phone number, therefore, it would be realized that sending a URL to a recipient’s mobile phone number direct the URL to the smartphone uniquely associated with the recipient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Agrawal where the sender enters the recipient’s mobile phone number prior to transmission content link to a particular recipient to the teaching of Smith in order to uniquely associate a smartphone with the recipient, because it would have predictably resulted in sending the URL linking to a shared content to a specific user’s smartphone uniquely associated with the recipient to ensure content is directed to a intended individual.
Regarding Claim 22, Smith teaches the method according to claim 21 wherein providing from the first user to a recipient the URL comprises transmitting the URL from a first user system to the recipient via the communications network ([Fig. 1, ¶ 0026] Sending computer 104 and receiving computer 106 are coupled to one another through a wide area computer network 102. [¶¶ 0028-0029], user of sending computer, who is sometimes called the sender, sends the subject document and data identifying the user of receiving computer, who is sometimes called the recipient, to a delivery server …the delivery server sends an e-mail message to the recipient and the e-mail message is directed to receiving computer …includes a personalized universal resource locator (URL) with instructions to the recipient to use the URL to retrieve the subject document).
Regarding Claim 23, Smith teaches the method according to claim 22 wherein the reply comprises a reply to the push notification received from the smartphone via the communication network (Fig. 1 illustrates sending computer 104, receiving computer 106, delivery server 108 and information server connected via Wide Area network 102. [¶ 0016], sender specifies secret information which is believed to be known to the intended recipient. The recipient must supply this information to download the delivered document. Since the intended recipient may not be expecting the document delivery and may not know the nature of the requisite information, the sender can also supply a prompt by which the recipient can surmise the requisite secret information. [¶ 0017] The recipient supplies information by which a user account is created for the recipient prior to downloading the delivered document. [¶¶ 0039-0040] delivery server prompts the recipient for the secret information specified by the sender. … If the secret information supplied by the recipient is accurate, delivery server proceeds…).
Regarding Claim 26, Smith does not explicitly teaches, however, Agrawal teaches the method according to claim 21 wherein the smartphone comprises, installed thereon, an application for receiving push notifications ([¶ 0038] To facilitate and manage network communications, the system may include various communication gateways and related applications. Content recipient devices may receive WAP push messages via the push proxy gateway and a short message peer-to-peer gateway. Cross-carrier content recipient devices may receive messages via a short message peer-to-peer gateway used in conjunction with a cross-carrier service application. [Fig. 2, ¶ 0042], FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a typical mobile communication device 200… Applications 220 such as wireless content browser applications ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Agrawal’s teaching of using push notification send to the recipient’s mobile device application to Smith’s dialog with the recipient to obtain secret information in order ensuring that the authentication dialog is directly delivered to the intended recipient’s personal device.
Regarding Claim 33, Smith teaches the method according to claim 21 wherein the URL is for redirecting communication to a first URL by a URL directing service ([¶¶ 0037-0038], …delivery server logic includes a URL generator which generates a URL specific to the recipient and specific to the subject document. Delivery server logic forms an e-mail message containing the URL and sends the e-mail message to the recipient…the recipient supplies the URL of the notification e-mail to a web browser which sends the URL to Web server of delivery server. Web server forwards the URL to delivery server logic which parses the URL identifies both the recipient and the subject document from the parsed URL. Delivery server logic retrieves the delivery parameters associated with the subject document as specified by the sender and determines that the sender requested recipient authentication by delivery server prior to completing delivery to the recipient. [¶ 0042] Once the recipient has provided the requisite information for creating a new user account…In addition delivery server logic sends a verification e-mail to the recipient at the e-mail address specified by the sender. Delivery server logic includes a second URL which specifies the recipient and the subject document and which is generated by URL generator. This second e-mail message containing a URL required to access the subject document adds further security.).
Regarding Claim 35, Smith teaches the method according to claim 33 wherein the URL directing service comprises a cloud based file-sharing service ([Fig. 1, ¶ 0026], A user of sending computer 104 wishes to send a document to a user of receiving computer 106. Sending computer 104 and receiving computer 106 are coupled to one another through a wide area computer network 102, which is the Internet in this illustrative embodiment. Computers 104 and 106 are also coupled to a delivery server 108 and an information server 110, both of which are also coupled to wide area computer network 102. Since, Smith teaches sending document using URL through a wide area computer network 102, which is the Internet, therefore, it would be appreciated that the delivery server 108 and the information server 110 provide cloud based file sharing service).
Regarding Claim 36, Smith teaches the method according to claim 35 wherein the resource is at least one of a webpage and a second URL ([¶ 0042] Once the recipient has provided the requisite information for creating a new user account, delivery server logic 230 updates the user account record of user database… delivery server logic sends a verification e-mail to the recipient at the e-mail address specified by the sender. Delivery server logic includes a second URL which specifies the recipient and the subject document and which is generated by URL generator. This second e-mail message containing a URL required to access the subject document adds further security. [¶ 0045] After sending the confirmation e-mail, delivery server logic conducts a receive session with the recipient in which the recipient is permitted to download the subject document. The subject document is identified by URLs submitted through Web server to delivery server logic. Since, Smith teaches that the document [i.e., resource] is accessed via a URL through a web server, the Examiner interprets, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that the document as being a web page or web-based resources accessible through the URL).
Regarding Claim 37, Smith teaches the method according to claim 21 wherein providing from the first user to the recipient the URL comprises sending the URL in one of an email, text, and tweet ([¶ 0018], “The verification e-mail message contains a URL by which the recipient can download the delivered document. [¶¶ 0028-0029], the sender, sends the subject document and data identifying the user of receiving computer, who is sometimes called the recipient, to delivery server using HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol)… Delivery server sends an e-mail message to the recipient and the e-mail message is directed to receiving computer. Delivery server includes a personalized universal resource locator (URL) in the e-mail message with instructions to the recipient to use the URL to retrieve the subject document).
Regarding Claim 38, Smith teaches the method according to claim 21 wherein receiving the reply comprises receiving authentication data for authenticating a source of the reply ([¶¶ 0038-0040] If delivery server logic determines that the account record of the recipient is a complete record, delivery server logic requests and requires a user account password from the recipient before making the subject document available for download. However, if the authentication is required, delivery server logic 230 implements a dialog with the recipient. …dialog, delivery server prompts the recipient for the secret information specified by the sender. …prompt is provided to the recipient. … If the secret information [i.e., authentication data] supplied by the recipient is accurate, delivery server 108 proceeds…).
Regarding Claim 40, the limitations of Claim 40 are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 21, therefore, rejected under the same rationale as claim 21. Examiner further notes, Smith also teaches in dependence upon the reply, performing one of denying access to the resource ([¶ 0040] If the recipient supplies incorrect responses to the prompt, delivery server refuses to download the subject document as required by the claim 40.
Regarding Claim 41, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 40, therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 27, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Agrawal, and further in view of US 2012/0066749 (Taugbol et al.).
Regarding Claim 27, Smith teaches the method according to claim 26 wherein providing a reply comprises …the reply transmitted to a security server ([¶ 0041] delivery server logic attempts to authenticate the recipient through an information client. Information client sends information regarding the recipient to an information server 110 [see, fig. 1] for verification.).
However, Smith in view of Agrawal do not explicitly teach, but Taugbol teaches responding from the application …from the smartphone ([¶ 0080], “The challenge may contain text or images to be displayed to and confirmed by the user by entering PIN or an OTP from another application present on the mobile”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taugbol’s teaching of responding the push notification from an application installed in the recipient smartphone to the combined teachings of Smith and Agrawal because such incorporation would have ensured the response directly received from the intended recipient’s smartphone.
Regarding Claim 29, Smith teaches the method according to claim 27 comprising: …receiving authentication data provided by a user; and wherein providing the reply comprises transmitting a response to the security server based on the authentication data ([⁋ 0040-0041] If the secret information supplied by the recipient is accurate, delivery server proceeds to step 316 in which the recipient is required to supply information regarding a new account to be created for the recipient. Such information includes, for example, a new password by which the recipient can be authenticated in the future. … delivery server logic attempts to authenticate the recipient through an information client. Information client sends information regarding the recipient to an information server for verification. Verification of information supplied by the recipient in creating a new user account for the recipient using third-party information servers significantly enhances confidence in the authenticity of the recipient).
However, Smith in view of Agrawal do not explicitly teach, but Taugbol teaches from within the application,… from the smartphone ([¶ 0080], “The challenge may contain text or images to be displayed to and confirmed by the user by entering PIN or an OTP from another application present on the mobile”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taugbol’s teaching of providing response from an application installed in the recipient’s smartphone to the combined teachings of Smith and Agrawal because such incorporation would have ensured the response directly received from the intended recipient’s smartphone.
Regarding Claim 32, although, Smith teaches if the recipient supplies incorrect responses to the prompt, delivery server refuses to download the subject document. [¶ 0040]. However, Smith in view of Agrawal do not explicitly teach, however, Taugbol teaches a method according to claim 21 further comprising transmitting a push notification to the smartphone indicating access to the resource has been denied ([¶ 0046], If the user types the wrong PIN or otherwise produces a wrong binary-OTP, the user is informed that authentication failed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taugbol’s teaching of transmit a notification to recipient’s smartphone indicating access to the resource has been denied to the combined teachings of Smith and Agrawal because such incorporation would have ensured the communication of message delivered directly to the intended recipient’s smartphone.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Agrawal and Taugbol, and further in view of US 2014/0208132 (Cheston et al.).
Regarding Claim 28, Smith in view of Agrawal and Taugbol do not explicitly teach, however, Cheston teaches the method according to claim 27 wherein transmitting a reply from the smartphone comprises transmitting a certificate between the application and the server [¶ 0076] an email that includes a link and optionally a certificate. …the recipient of the email may select the link to launch a remote session to a device to access one or more resources available on, or through the device. …the link may be a URL to a service or to a device. In either instance, a certificate may be transmitted to the URL or otherwise implemented to gain access).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Cheston’s certificate to gain access to a resource using URL to the combined teaching of Smith, Agrawal and Taugbol because such incorporation would have enhanced security and provided a standardized authentication mechanism for controlling access to a resource accessible through a URL.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Agrawal, and further in view of US 2012/0030774 (Keith et al.).
Regarding Claim 31, Smith in view of Agrawal do not explicitly teach, however, Keith teaches the method according to claim 21 comprising: determining a time of the request and restricting access to the resource at some times and allowing access to the resource at other times ([¶ 0006], The URL may provide access to the content server for a time period indicated by the time stamp. Since, Keith teaches provide access for a time period, therefore, it would be realized that allow access for the time period and restrict access for other times).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Keith’s teachings of allow and restrict of resource based on allowable time period to the combined teaching of Smith and Agrawal, because such incorporation would have provided predictable benefits of prevent indefinite access, which is particularly useful for temporary sharing or subscription-based access.
Claim 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Agrawal, and further in view of US 9,058,490 (Barker et al.).
Regarding Claim 34, Smith in view of Agrawal do not explicitly teach, however, Barker teaches the method according to claim 33 wherein the URL directing service comprises a URL security service ([C.7:L.66-67], The URL shortening service module 112 may also utilize the Internet security service).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Barker’s URL security service to the combined teaching of Smith and Agrawal because such incorporation would have provided security of accessing resources associated with a URL.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9206. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, ARIO ETIENNE can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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 YOUSUF A. MIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457