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 11/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner notes that claim 17 is marked “Currently Amended”, despite no amendments being made to claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and claims 7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first attests that the amended claims overcome the previously presented prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument that since the next button 216 disclosed by the Jancula reference does not exactly mimic the function of Applicant’s claimed submit box is wholly unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the intended use of the submit box does not prevent the Jancula reference from anticipating the claimed functions of the claimed invention. Applicant’s reliance on the particular manner of the claimed submit box being clicked via the input device of the specific user device amounts to a mere design choice and does not affect the Jancula reference anticipating the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. The intended manner of use of the submit box does not affect the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, as Jancula clearly anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of displaying a fulfillment validation tool comprising “a display of a virtual submit box” and “a display of a feedback indicator that appears with the graphical indicators upon actual submission”. The amended claim limitation “by the virtual submit box being click via the input device of the specific user device” amounts to the intended use of the system of the user using an input device (such as a mouse, pointer, clicker, touchscreen, virtual buttons, LED, buzzer, bell, printer, joystick, etc.), and therefore does not overcome the Jancula reference. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, there is not a structural difference between Jancula and the claimed invention. Instead, Applicant is attempting to hinge all patentability upon the mere design choice of using a “virtual submit box” being clicked (by the user using an input device) that makes the phrase “! Your password doesn’t meet the requirements.” (the claimed “feedback indicator” as seen in Applicant’s originally filed Fig. 4) appear to inform the user of their insufficient password; in contrast to Jancula providing the display of the password feedback indicator as the user enters each character via an input device and then allowing the user to select the next box once a sufficient password is typed and move on to the next screen. The same function is performed by the claimed invention and the Jancula reference, wherein the Jancula reference and the claimed invention both inform the user of the device that their password is insufficient when it does not meet all/a part of the listed criteria (Jancula [0028] “At this point, the rules that have not been satisfied are indicated as "minimum seven characters", "minimum two lower case letters", and "minimum two symbols in first eight". The window 200 also provides a note depicted at 218 indicates whether the password specification is case sensitive or not, with the former being the case in the depicted example. Alternatively or in addition to progressive feedback listing 204, the window 200 can include a suggestion prompt 220 that guides the user to include a type of character that will increase the touch score. This suggestion prompt 220 can also guide the user into an optimal way to satisfy the remaining rules”). The next box of Jancula and Applicant’s claimed submit box are well-known user interface elements to submit input provided by a user/user device through an input device.
Applicant attempts to rebut the previously presented claim mapping to the feedback indicator by repeating ad nauseam that “However, as in the prior Office Action, functions and features seemingly cited in FIG. 2 of Jancula are not well described in the cited reference, and are thus at best only subject to conjecture. Anticipation cannot be supported by conjecture made for convenience in hind-sight view of claims under examination because conjectures are not determinative of anticipation, the standards of which are not met by Jancula”, while again, not pointing to any specific deficiency in the prior rejections, or stating how the prior presented rejections participate in the alleged “conjecture”. The previously presented prior art clearly anticipates the claimed invention.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) will be maintained.
Applicant further remarks “The Office Action at length purports to equivocate and/or ambiguate prior terms in the recitations of the independent claims to support the rejections. By amendment herein, in which for example characters are recited as “typed” in lieu of “entered,” and the virtual submit box is “clicked” in lieu of “by use of the virtual submit box,” those terms construed by way of broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in the Office Action are supplanted by terms for which no use of BRI can support the rejections”.
The Examiner is unsure how the substitution of these terms affect the broadest reasonable interpretation in any way, and it is entirely unclear what the cryptic phrase “those terms construed by way of broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in the Office Action are supplanted by terms for which no use of BRI can support the rejections” actually means.
Applicant lastly argues that claims 7 and 12 are allegedly allowable because of the alleged deficiencies found in the Jancula reference, and because.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since applicant does not give any further explanation as to how the previously cited art differentiates from the claimed invention other than alleging dependence upon an allegedly allowable claim, the Examiner defers to the rejection below as a response to this argument.
Requirements for information under 37 CFR § 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination and treat matters in this pending application. The duty of candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56 applies to the applicant’s reply to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and requires that the applicant reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 with information reasonably and readily available.
Specific information that is reasonably required includes the information the matter of the contents of Applicant’s originally filed Drawings, Figures 2-5, The marks, including the logo (Mark) shown in the images, correspond to marks and service marks of LastPass US LP to which the claimed subject matter appears to be embodied in. This information of record raises a question of whether the inventor derived the invention from goods or services to which the claimed subject matter is embodied in, that is evidenced from the content of Figures 2-5. The mark corresponding to the goods or services to which the claimed subject matter appears to be embodied in is shown in the annotated Figures below:
PNG
media_image1.png
656
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
598
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
594
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This information is properly necessary to compel disclosure of information that the examiner deems pertinent to patentability Applicant’s claimed invention.
The above information as pertaining to the following is requested:
(i) Commercial databases: The existence of any particularly relevant commercial database known to any of the inventors that could be searched for a particular aspect of the invention, regarding the existing LastPass password submission generation, process, and user-interface.
(ii) Search: Whether a search of the prior art was made, and if so, what was searched with regard to existing password interfaces.
(iii) Information used to draft application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application, relating to the above identified password manager, requirements, and interface.
(iv) Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result, such as designing a user interface to display password requirements and designing a user interface to provide a box that can be clicked by a user input device to submit a proposed password.
(v) Improvements : Where the claimed invention is an improvement, identification of what is being improved, with relation to existing well-known password requirements and user interface elements.
(vi) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to applicant concerning the related known LastPass password manager and user interface elements, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 16:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite “disseminate a program to the user devices associated with the multiple registered user accounts and at least in part remotely control via the disseminated program a display of a specific user device”. There is no support in the disclosure regarding how the inventor intended to perform this claimed functionality. The algorithm or steps/procedures for these claimed functions is not explained at all or is not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function reciting in the claim is not necessarily sufficient) so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure does not appear to contain description regarding how the inventor intended to have the claimed invention configured to perform the intended function of program dissemination and remote control.
The dependent claims fall together accordingly.
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 disseminate a program to the user devices associated with the multiple registered user accounts and at least in part remotely control via the disseminated program a display of a specific user device and thereby cause display of a fulfillment validation tool on the display of the specific user device for resetting of the security code of a specific user account with which the specific 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 typed via an input device of the specific 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 typed via the input device of the specific 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 the virtual submit box being clicked via the input device of the specific user device, 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_image5.png
989
1013
media_image5.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) 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over W3schools. (2017, September 11). Learn how to create a password validation form with CSS and JavaScript. How TO - Password Validation, hereinafter W3Schools in view of Jancula (US Publication No. US 2009/0158406 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 16:
Claim 1. W3schools evidence is one example that teaches notoriously known “password validation real time fulfillment validation of security code requisite component characters” in the art, this evidence teaches a person having ordinary skill in the art how to create a password validation form, for example using with CSS and JavaScript (i.e. using 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), as claimed. It further teaches display of a fulfillment validation tool on the display of the specific user device for resetting of the security code of a specific user account with which the specific user device is associated, the display of the fulfillment validation tool comprising: a display of an entry field for displaying each character of multiple ordered characters in real time upon each said character being typed via an input device of the specific user device; 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; 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 typed via the input device of the specific user device; a display of a virtual submit box for actual submission of the multiple ordered characters as a proposed new security code; and a display of a feedback indicator that appears with the graphical indicators upon actual submission, by the virtual submit box being clicked via the input device of the specific user device, of the multiple ordered characters as a proposed new security code that is insufficient with respect to any one of the requisite components.
W3Schools clearly teaches the claim limitations at issue by teaching a “How To – Password Validation” and associated “Try it Yourself” page; as shown in the images:
PNG
media_image6.png
878
720
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1044
1638
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
512
538
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
418
532
media_image9.png
Greyscale
While it is shown that for real time fulfillment validation of security code requisite component characters is well-known, as outlined above, the use of such passwords validations in a computing system maintaining a security code for each user account of multiple registered user accounts each associated with at least one user device, corresponding to an implementation in the field, is not shown in the particular tutorial.
However, the Jancula reference teaches such a computing system maintaining a security code for each user account of multiple registered user accounts each associated with at least one user device, corresponding to an implementation in the field. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of real time fulfillment validation of security code requisite component characters taught by W3Schools to the system taught by Jancula would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system of displaying real time fulfillment validation of security code requisite component characters for each user account of multiple registered user accounts. Enforcing password requirements is an important aspect of computer and network security according to Jancula (Jancula [0019], [0027], [0042], [0065], [0089]).
Jancula, which has already been shown above to disclose and anticipate 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 disseminate a program to the user devices associated with the multiple registered user accounts and at least in part remotely control via the disseminated program a display of a specific user device and thereby cause display of a fulfillment validation tool on the display of the specific user device for resetting of the security code of a specific user account with which the specific 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 typed via an input device of the specific 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 typed via the input device of the specific 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 the virtual submit box being clicked via the input device of the specific user device, 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]).
See Figure 2 of Jancula here as annotated by the Examiner:
PNG
media_image5.png
989
1013
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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]).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 17:
Claim 2. The combination of W3Schools and Jancula further teaches 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.
In the alternative rejection in view of W3Schools, W3 schools further teaches 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 (W3Schools attached images).
See W3Schools:
PNG
media_image8.png
512
538
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
418
532
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
398
534
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 18:
Claim 3. The combination of W3Schools and Jancula further teaches 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).
In the alternative rejection in view of W3Schools, W3 schools further teaches 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 (See W3Schools images for claims 1 and 2, wherein the graphical indicators display red “X”’s when the particular component is not fulfilled, and the graphical indicators display green “[Wingdings font/0xFC]”’s (checkmarks) when the particular component is fulfilled).
Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 19:
Claim 4. The combination of W3Schools and Jancula further teaches 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. The combination of W3Schools and Jancula further teaches 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).
In the alternative rejection in view of W3Schools, W3 schools further teaches 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 (See W3Schools images for claims 1 and 2, wherein the graphical indicators remain transitioned to the green checkmark state until the requirement is unfulfilled by editing the proposed password).
Claims 15 and 20 recite substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
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; or in the alternative rejection, W3Schools in view of Jancula.
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.
In the alternative rejection in view of W3Schools, W3 schools further teaches wherein the fulfillment validation tool comprises a design system token (See attached image of the W3Schools source code, wherein the message box is stylized by the use of CSS)
Attached Stylized W3Schools code:
PNG
media_image11.png
976
776
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
1038
1632
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the stylization and design system tokens taught by W3Schools with the password validation and suggestion tool disclosed by Jancula. The motivation for this combination would be to utilize well-known, developer chosen CSS design elements and user-interface choices in order to clearly convey using fonts and colors whether the proposed passwords meet each of the requirements or not.
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.
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office 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
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights