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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 1-3, filed 07/22/2025 with respect to the interview summary have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disparages the authenticity, reliability, and accessibility of the Wayback Machine®, attempts to provide a court case, “Dave Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring” [sic] (the correct case is Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, Inc.), from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, No. 20-30568 (5th Cir. 2022), and finally suggests that “authentication will be a burden for the USPTO, not Applicant, should the Office make a prior-art based rejection in any next or thereafter Office Action based on any contents found via the Wayback Machine®”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, Inc., No. 20-30568 (5th Cir. 2022), hereinafter Weinhoffer, is misapplied by the Applicant. The particular findings of Weinhoffer were pertaining to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the admissibility of unauthenticated auction terms found via Wayback Machine® content for the purposes of judicial notice, and that the district court erred in allowing unauthenticated information to meet the high standard of judicial notice. However, in the Weinhoffer case, the Court explicitly recognizes the ability of a patent examiner to determine whether or not a particular archived webpage was available to the public at the relevant time from the Wayback Machine®, and thus could constitute prior art in citing Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374-75, 2021 USPQ2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Court further states in part:
“A more recent Federal Circuit decision discussed whether Wayback Machine content was publicly accessible. [citation to: Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2021)] At issue was whether an exhibit was authenticated as identical to the document viewed by the patent examiner and whether the exhibit could be prior art. There, the Federal Circuit [emphasis added] held that judicial notice of the Wayback Machine could be used to establish that an otherwise authenticated exhibit was publicly accessible on the webpage’s archive date as determined by a patent examiner who was “trained and required to determine publication dates.” [citing again to the Valve case] Here, the Wayback Machine content containing the auction terms has not been otherwise authenticated.”.
As in MPEP 2128 II. E. “Publications obtained via the Wayback Machine® are prima facie deemed to be publicly accessible at the date and time provided in the time stamp. The burden then shifts to the applicant should they wish to challenge the authenticity, reliability or accessibility of such information. See Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374-75, 2021 USPQ2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (relying on Wayback Machine® to establish date of publication)”. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully rebuts Applicant’s presumption that the burden lies with the Office to authenticate snapshots taken from the Wayback Machine® as the Weinhoffer case cited by Applicant affirms the ability of patent examiner to utilize the tool to establish public availability dates of potential pieces of prior art publicly available on the internet, and the MPEP explicitly states that the burden shifts to the Applicant should they wish to challenge the authenticity, reliability, or accessibility of such information. The fact pattern of Weinhoffer does not change examination practice or procedure (as Weinhoffer is concerned with which specific version of auction terms were violated), and Weinhoffer in fact recognizes the usefulness of the Wayback Machine® in determining a public availability date of a webpage for purposes of searching for relevant prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 8, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered. The previous rejection of claims 2, 8, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant attests that the Office Action ambiguously neither withdraws nor formally reasserts rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After cursory review of the Office Action mailed 06/05/2025, it is evident that the Examiner intended to reaffirm the same 101 rejection, whose statutory basis was provided on pages 3-4 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/24/2024, accompanied by the explanation provided on pages 2-3 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/05/2025. The Examiner will provide again and reassert the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the rejection below.
Applicant separately attests that the amended independent claims cannot be substituted by a mental process, that the invention is integrated into a practical application, and that there is “no prior art of which application [sic] is aware provides any subject matter comparable to the submit box and feedback indicator operative combination as now recited in the independent claims as amended”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention, as currently amended, is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites displaying to the user various “security code” requirements, displaying an entry field to enable the user to enter and submit characters via an input device of the user’s device, displaying a graphical indicator that transitions upon fulfillment of the requirements by the user entering characters, and then displaying a graphical indicator once the user has submitted the characters notifying the user that their submission is deficient with respect to any of the requirements. These claimed functionalities amount to a mental process as a user can simply view the “security code” that they create using a generic computer, and recognize whether or not the developed security code meets the requirements. Applicant’s arguments that the invention is integrated into a practical application because it conducts “real time fulfillment validation of security code requisite component characters” via a graphical indicator transition is unpersuasive. The graphical indicators and other user interface elements (including the overly relied upon and repeatedly asserted “submit box”) still remain recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (i.e. a generic computer with a display), and the graphical indicators/feedback amount to mental processes of the user. This is evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure in paragraphs [00094-00095] where Applicant discloses that it is the user that types into the entry field, it is the user that types characters that fulfills each of the requirements, and it is the action of the user to click the submit box to send data.
As an example, the claimed invention, except for the generic computing components, could be accomplished within the human mind aided by a pen and paper. The human need only write down the requisite password requirements, think about a complex enough password that fulfills the requirements, then begin writing each character of the password. Once each criterion of the enumerated criteria is fulfilled, the human places a checkmark next to the criterion that was fulfilled, but if the password is erased/deleted in whole or in part, the checkmark can be removed on the paper (i.e. white out or scratching out to represent a failure to fulfill the enumerated criterion) as each criterion is no longer being met.
Except for the generic computer components recited, and the well understood routine activity (storing data, receiving data, sending data, displaying data, retrieving information in memory) recited in the claims, the claimed invention can clearly be practiced in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), claims 7-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not provide any evidence that the structure disclosed by Jancula does not anticipate the functioning of the claimed invention outside the mere conclusory statements of “Jancula does not disclose any particular feature by which a proposed new password is submitted in the recitations of the independent claims as amended. The next button 216 does not function as the Applicant’s virtual submit box is claimed [sic] …”, a mention that Jancula’s next box button is disabled until the password is correctly entered, and an allegation that the previous rejection based on anticipation “cannot be supported by conjecture made for convenience in hind-sight view of claims under examination”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Provided here is an image of Jancula Figure 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
989
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To clarify the record, and in light of Applicant’s arguments, use of Jancula box 208 is performed by the user typing in characters, and the immediate feedback upon submission of the characters anticipates the claimed invention. Jancula box 204 contains a list of requisite password components, each requisite components displays a feedback indicator upon the user submitting characters into Jancula box 206, and as seen above, upon actual submission of the ordered characters the checkmarks appear to show whether the new code is sufficient or not. If the enumerated criterion is fulfilled, the text is black (in the image, un-bolded as it is in black and white, see Jancula [0029] “For example, entering a restricted symbol or exceeding a maximum length could result in a corresponding rule changing color to red as compared to black font for those not yet satisfied but that could yet be satisfied as the user continues to enter characters.”) and there is a checkmark; however, if the criterion is unfulfilled, the text may be red (bolded) and there is an absence of a checkmark. Therefore, Jancula anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as amended.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant merely alleges that since the independent claims are novel and non-obvious, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn. The Examiner defers to the rejection below as a response to this argument.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”), effective January 7, 2019, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more nor being integrated into a practical application. The claimed invention is directed to a system comprising a generic computing system comprising computer-readable instructions stored in non-transitory computer-readable media and a processor, a network connection, wherein the instructions when executed display a security code fulfillment validation tool on a display of a generic user device, wherein the display of the fulfillment validation tool comprises displaying an entry field for characters to be entered into, a displayed list of password requirements, a display of graphical indicators that transition upon fulfillment of each of the criteria, a display of a submit box, and a display of a feedback indicator that appears upon use of the submit box.
The claim limitations identified above, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and are broad enough to encompass performance by a human using pen and paper. Except for the generic system, generic processors and non-transitory media storing instructions, generic network connection, generic user device, and generic display of graphical user interface elements language in independent claim 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional generically recited computer elements beyond the abstract idea, taken both individually and as a combination, in independent claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of “display of a virtual submit box”, “display of a listing of requisite components”, “display of a feedback indicator”, “display of graphical indicators”, and “display of an entry field” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. in the context of these claims, as a general way of graphical user interface elements) and amounts to mere data sending and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 9 and 16 disclose substantially the same content and are rejected by the same rationales set forth for independent claim 1 as they only differ by disclosing a memory and a method utilizing a memory respectively, and both are recited at a high level of generality which does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as the claims do not contain any element or combination of elements that is sufficient enough to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 17 do not contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely describes how the graphical user interface elements transition.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 18 do not contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application because it constitutes a mere description of how the graphical indicators transition.
Dependent claims 4, 13, and 19 do not contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely gives examples of what may comprise the requisite components, which is a part of the mental process rejected in the independent claims.
Dependent claims 6, 15, and 20 do not contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application because it describes how long a graphical indicator remains in the transitioned state, which is a part of the mental process rejected in the independent claims.
Dependent claims 7 and 12 do not contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims amount to mere storage and retrieval of information in memory which is recognized as a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Jancula et. al. (US Publication No. US 2009/0158406 A1) hereinafter Jancula.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 16:
Claim 1. Jancula discloses a system for real time fulfillment validation of security code requisite component characters, the system comprising: a computing system including at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions, and at least one of a memory device and a non-transitory storage device storing particular computer-readable instructions and maintaining a security code for each user account of multiple registered user accounts each associated with at least one user device, the security code being required for authorizing access via the user account to at least one product, service, or content (Jancula Fig. 2 and 9; [0017] and [0092-0095]); a network connection for operatively connecting the computing system to user devices associated with the multiple registered user accounts (Jancula [0090-0102]); wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the particular computer-readable instructions, is configured to cause display of a fulfillment validation tool on a display of a specific user device for resetting of the security code of a specific user account with which the user device is associated, the display of the fulfillment validation tool comprising (Jancula Fig. 2, [0028-0029]): a display of an entry field for displaying each character of multiple ordered characters in real time upon each said character being entered via an input device of the user device (Jancula Fig. 2 new password, [0028-0029]); a display of listing of requisite components each required of at least one character of the multiple ordered characters for the multiple ordered characters to be received as a sufficient new security code (Jancula Fig. 2 password specification, [0028-0029]); and a display of graphical indicators each associated with a respective particular one of the requisite components, each graphical indicator for transitioning upon fulfillment of the particular one of the requisite components by any particular character of the multiple ordered characters upon said particular character being entered via the input device of the user device (Jancula Fig. 2 check marks next to fulfilled entries, [0028-0029] black font for unfulfilled requirements, red for violated); a display of a virtual submit box for actual submission of the multiple ordered characters as a proposed new security code (Jancula Fig. 2 new password box and next box is well-known user interface elements to submit the input, [0028-0029]); and a display of a feedback indicator that appears with the graphical indicators upon actual submission, by use of the virtual submit box, of the multiple ordered characters as a proposed new security code that is insufficient with respect to any one of the requisite components (Jancula Fig. 2 suggestion for password explicitly disclosed, [0028-0029]).
Claims 9 and 16 recite substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales. Jancula discloses a method (Jancula Fig. 3, [0030]).
See Figure 2 of Jancula here as annotated by the Examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
989
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 17:
Claim 2. Jancula further discloses the system according to claim 1 (Jancula Fig. 2 and 9; [0017] and [0092-0095]), wherein each graphical indicator transitions upon fulfillment of the particular one of the requisite components such that the graphical indicators transition in an order in which their associated requisite components are fulfilled (Jancula Fig. 2 check marks next to fulfilled entries, [0028-0029] black font for unfulfilled requirements, red for violated).
Claims 10 and 17 recite substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 18:
Claim 3. Jancula further discloses the system according to claim 1 (Jancula Fig. 2 and 9; [0017] and [0092-0095]), wherein each graphical indicator transitioning comprises displaying at least one of a symbol and a color change upon fulfillment of the particular one of the requisite components (Jancula Figure 2).
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 19:
Claim 4. Jancula further discloses the system according to claim 1 (Jancula Fig. 2 and 9; [0017] and [0092-0095]), wherein the listing of requisite components comprises a requirement for each of a minimum number of characters, at least one uppercase letter, at least one lower case letter, a number and a symbol, the symbol being non-alphabetic and non-numeric (Jancula Fig. 2 password specification and requirements explicitly disclosed, [0028-0029]).
Claims 13 and 19 recite substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 6, 15, and 20:
Claim 6. Jancula further discloses the system according to claim 1 (Jancula Fig. 2 and 9; [0017] and [0092-0095]), wherein each transitioned graphical indicator remains transitioned as long as at least one character fulfills the particular one of the requisite components associated with the transitioned graphical indicator (Jancula Fig. 2 check marks next to fulfilled entries, [0028-0029] black font for unfulfilled requirements, red for violated).
Claims 15 and 20 recite substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jancula in view of Finnan et. al. (US Publication No. US 2013/0291096 A1) hereinafter Finnan.
Regarding Claims 7 and 12:
Claim 7. Jancula discloses the system according to claim 1 (Jancula Fig. 2 and 9; [0017] and [0092-0095]).
Jancula does not disclose wherein the fulfillment validation tool comprises a design system token.
Finnan teaches wherein the fulfillment validation tool comprises a design system token (Finnan [0098] “The example depicts a device 100 having the capabilities to manifest an arrangement of virtual keys 110, in this case via a graphical interface 105. For purposes of this invention, a device may be any computer, system, or attached peripheral capable of dynamically altering its interface and presenting to users of the system different interface configurations through which the users may provide a passcode. Examples of such a device include, but are not limited to: handheld devices used during data collection, cellular phones and smart devices, ATM machines, personal computers, credit/debit systems used at gas pumps and checkout lines, physical security access terminals, etc. Each of the virtual keys 110 in this embodiment is associated with six property sets; however any plurality of property sets may be employed. The property sets used in the example shown in FIG. 1 are: shape 115, number 120, Latin characters A through H 125, Latin characters I through Q 130, Latin characters R through Z 135, and color 140 (represented as a pattern)” [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the password verification of Jancula with the template creation and design taught by Finnan. The motivation for this combination would be to enable the user or manager of the device to customize the template and user experience when it comes to entering in a passcode.
Claims 12 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the submitted PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The Examiner highlights the “W3Schools” prior art references as those of particular interest to the alleged patentability of the claimed invention as seen here:
PNG
media_image2.png
874
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
508
1078
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
510
1074
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
512
1076
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
516
1078
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1241. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached on 5712727624. 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.
/M.A.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437