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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 21 December 2022.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15, are independent claims.
3. The IDS submitted on 30 March 2005 has been considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remillet et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0089639 (hereinafter ‘639) in view of Scavezze European Patent Application EP 2,887,253 (hereinafter ‘253).
As to dependent claim 1, “A method for authenticating a user to access a resource, the method comprising: determining a plurality of devices on which to perform a multi-factor authentication sequence, wherein the plurality of devices comprises a virtual device and a physical device; as part of completing the multi-factor authentication sequence, requiring a user to perform a first authentication action on the virtual device” is taught in ‘639 paragraphs 77-79 and 121, note before performing the authentication method an enrollment phase is performed which defines a 3D password in which virtual objects (i.e. virtual device) and biometric attributes of the user is captured through a sensor (i.e. physical device);the following is not explicitly taught in ‘639:
“and a second authentication action on the physical device; and in response to the user completing the multi-factor authorization sequence on both the virtual device and the physical device, granting authorization to the user to access a resource” however ‘253 teaches authenticating a user of a display device by identifying one or more movements (i.e. actions) of a user via a sensor (i.e. physical device) as well as granting access to restricted resources after being authenticated via one or more input mechanisms (i.e. multi-factor authentication) in the Abstract, paragraphs 2, 5, 9-13, and 26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a method and system for 3D Graphical Authentication on Electronic Devices taught in ‘639 to include a means to require a second authentication action to be performed on a physical device in order to authenticate and authorize access to a resource. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to because the EP-2887253 issued to Mike Scavezze was cited in ‘639 application see paragraph 23. The ‘639 publication and the EP patent application are directed to similar subject matter.
As to dependent claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-factor authentication sequence has associated therewith an order for performing the first authentication action and the second authentication action” is taught in ‘253 Abstract paragraphs 2, 9, and 12, note predefined order.
As to dependent claim 4, “The method of claim 1, wherein performing the first authentication action comprises requiring a user to navigate to a designated location within a virtual reality environment in order to perform the first authentication action” is shown in ‘639 Abstract, paragraphs 7, and 63-76.
As to dependent claim 5, “The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-factor authentication sequence is a two-factor authentication sequence” is disclosed in ‘639 paragraphs 171 and 173.
As to dependent claim 6, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first authentication action can only be performed after completing the second authentication action” is taught in ‘253 Abstract, paragraphs 2 and 9-12, note predefined order.
As to dependent claim 7, “The method of claim 1, wherein the second authentication action can only be performed after completing the first authentication action” is shown in ‘253 Abstract, paragraphs 2 and 9-12, note predefined order.
As to independent claim 8, this claim is directed to a computer program product having program code configured to execute the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to dependent claims 9 and 11-14 these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claims 2 and 4-7; therefore, they are rejected along similar rationale.
As to independent claim 15, this claim is directed to a system executing the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to dependent claims 16 and 18-20 these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claims 2 and 4-7; therefore, they are rejected along similar rationale.
6. Claims 3, 10, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remillet et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0089639 (hereinafter ‘639) in view of Scavezze European Patent Application EP 2,887,253 (hereinafter ‘253) in further view of Chou et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0089855 (hereinafter ‘855).
As to dependent claim 3, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘639 and ‘253: “The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-factor authentication sequence has associated therewith a timing for performing the first authentication action and the second authentication action” however ‘855 teaches determining a user’s focus point during a time interval for password entry in paragraphs 6-7 and 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a method and system for 3D Graphical Authentication on Electronic Devices taught in ‘639 and ‘253 to include a means to require the first and second authentication actions to be performed within a time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase the useability of head-mounted displays (HMDs) used in virtual reality (VR) environments see ‘855 paragraphs 2-5.
As to dependent claims 10 and 17, these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claim 3; therefore, they are rejected along similar rationale.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Scavezze et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0125574, is the U.S. Patent Application corresponding to the European Patent Application cited above.
Pauli et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0141880 is directed to performing a user authentication task in a virtual environment.
Irwin, Jr. et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0134110 is directed to a system and method to be individually authenticated in a Virtual Reality (VR) environment.
Terpstra et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0103449 is directed to a management framework for mixed reality devices.
Beckett, Jr. et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0074059 is directed to a method and system for memetic authentication and identification.
Joshi U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0098005 is directed to a virtual reality (VR) scene-based authentication method.
Kuneva U.S. Patent No. 11,662,894 is directed to a method and systems for providing secure authentication in a virtual or augmented reality environment using an interactive icon.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to jeffrey c pwu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 31 January 2026