DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 01/08/2026. Claim(s) 1,8 have been currently amended. Claims 1,3-6 and 8-14 are pending examination.
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 .
Response to arguments
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3,5,6,8,9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A new reference Sikka et al. (US 20160034702 A1), has been introduced and discloses that keyboard input routing depends on which window or domain on the computing device has focus. When a trusted window has focus, keyboard input is routed through a protected path, and when that window loses focus, keyboard input is routed through a normal or default path. This teaches a secure-mode termination triggered by focus loss and reversion to standard keyboard communication while continuing normal keystroke generation and delivery.
Another reference, Matthews et al. (US 20160344717 A1), has been introduced and discloses authentication of a peripheral device using digital authentication certificates. Matthews discloses that a peripheral presents a certificate-based authentication data to establish trust with the computing device. This authentication data that includes an authentication certificate for a keyboard or input device.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,8,9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 20220245287 A1) hereinafter referred to as Fernandez, in view of Sikka et al. (US 20160034702 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sikka
As per claim 1, Fernandez discloses one or more computer storage media comprising computer-executable instructions that when executed by a keyboard perform a method of securing communication of input data between an input destination on a computing device and the keyboard, the method comprising:
receiving, at the keyboard, a secure-mode initiation request from the input destination on the computing device, wherein the input destination is a container that is in-focus and running on the computing device; (Generating, at the computing device, a randomized keymap, and sending, from the computing device, session information data. The session information data includes first data that identifies the user, second data that identifies a communication session between the keyboard and the computing device, and third data that identifies the randomized key map, Fernandez, para [0010])
in response to the secure-mode initiation request, activating, at the keyboard, a secure mode of communication between the keyboard and the input destination; (After the computer receives the activation notification and user ID, the computer generates a session token, Fernandez, para [0012]. Once the keyboard receives the session information (token, map), it activates the secure encrypted mode of communication).
generating, by the keyboard, input data in response to a user input; (The keyboard includes a processor that encrypts generated keystroke signals according to a key map, and transmits the encrypted keystroke signals, Fernandez, para [0011])
encrypting, by the keyboard, the input data to generate encrypted input data; (The processor translates the keystroke data into encrypted keystroke data using the encryption key. The encrypted keystroke data is then sent to the computer 170 via a serial connection 150 between the keyboard 10 and the computer 170, Fernandez, para [0019]- [0020])
communicating, by the keyboard, the encrypted input data to the input destination over a secure channel that is different from a default channel used to communicate keystrokes to the input destination; (The system for securely transmitting a communication and transmits the encrypted keystroke signal, Fernandez, para [0012]. Here the encrypted keystroke signals are transmitted via the secure session rather than a plain, default unencrypted channel, Fernandez, Fig 3).
However, Fernandez does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
receiving, at the keyboard, a secure mode termination request from the input destination in response to the container losing focus;
in response to the secure-mode termination request, activating, at the keyboard, a standard mode of communication between the keyboard and the computing device;
generating, by the keyboard, new input data in response to a new user input; and
communicating, by the keyboard, the new input data to the computing device over the default channel used to communicate keystrokes to the computing device.
Sikka discloses:
receiving, at the keyboard, a secure mode termination request from the input destination in response to the container losing focus; (Device assignment and/or device IO routing could be dynamically modified based on which Domain owns the window with the current focus. For example, while a window from a Trusted Domain has focus, keyboard and audio devices or just IO from those devices could be passed to the Trusted Domain that owns the window. When a window belonging to another domain including an Untrusted Domain has focus, devices or just IO can be passed to the Untrusted Domain that owns the window with focus, Sikka, para [0047]. This teaches the loss of focus causes the system to switch routing of keyboard input away from the trusted destination. The window belongs to a domain (trusted vs untrusted), which is a contained execution environment and routing depends on which such environment is in focus).
in response to the secure-mode termination request, activating, at the keyboard, a standard mode of communication between the keyboard and the computing device; (When focus changes away from the trusted window, IO is passed to the other (untrusted) domain, Sikka, para [0047]. Here, the standard mode is to non-trusted/default routing i.e., the ordinary path when the trusted window is not focused).
generating, by the keyboard, new input data in response to a new user input; and (An input device such as a keyboard and its input could be routed, Sikka, para [0047]. Here, the ordinary operation of a keyboard producing input and focuses on where that input is routed under secure vs non-secure conditions).
communicating, by the keyboard, the new input data to the computing device over the default channel used to communicate keystrokes to the computing device. (Trusted window focus routes keyboard IO to trusted domain and the other focus routes to untrusted domain, Sikka, para [0047])
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez with Sikka in order to effectively facilitate secure communication between a device and an application (See Sikka, para [0047]).
As per claim 3, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the media of claim [[2]]1 wherein
Furthermore, Fernandez discloses:
the input destination has a decryption key for the encrypted input data (The computing device includes: a processor operable to decrypt the encrypted keystroke signals transmitted from the keyboard to the computing device using the key map and a display device operable to display the decrypted keystroke signals, Fernandez, claim 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez with Sikka in order to effectively facilitate secure communication between a device and an application (See Sikka, para [0047]).
As per claim 8, Fernandez discloses a method of securing communication of input data between a input destination on a computing device and a keyboard, the method comprising:
communicating, from the input destination on the computing device, a secure-mode initiation request to a security application running on the keyboard, wherein the input destination is a container that is in-focus and running on the computing device; (Generating, at the computing device, a randomized keymap, and sending, from the computing device, session information data. The session information data includes first data that identifies the user, second data that identifies a communication session between the keyboard and the computing device, and third data that identifies the randomized key map, Fernandez, para [0010])
in response to the secure-mode initiation request, receiving over a secure channel that is different from a default channel used to communicate keystrokes to the input destination, by the input destination, encrypted input data from the keyboard, wherein the encrypted input data was encrypted on the keyboard; and (The system for securely transmitting a communication and transmits the encrypted keystroke signal, Fernandez, para [0012]. Here the encrypted keystroke signals are transmitted via the secure session rather than a plain, default unencrypted channel, Fernandez, Fig 3).
decrypting, by the input destination and using the secret key, the encrypted input data to generate a usable input to the input destination (The computing device includes: a processor operable to decrypt the encrypted keystroke signals transmitted from the keyboard to the computing device using the key map and a display device operable to display the decrypted keystroke signals, Fernandez, claim 2).
However, Fernandez does not explicitly disclose:
communicating, from the container, a secret key to use in encryption to the security application running on the keyboard;
Sikka discloses:
communicating, from the container, a secret key to use in encryption to the security application running on the keyboard; (A physical computer could have multiple users which could each store encrypted Private DLP Keys on the physical computer. PGP is not the only cryptographic technique that can be used to encrypt content and keys, Sikka, para [0044])
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez with Sikka in order to effectively facilitate secure communication between a device and an application (See Sikka, para [0047]).
As per claim 9, Fernandez and Sikka discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising
Furthermore, Sikka discloses:
outputting through a user interface, associated with the input destination, an attestation that a secure mode is active (The full physical display of the physical machine can be switched between domains to exclusively display the screen of any single domain, Sikka, para [0045])
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez with Sikka in order to effectively facilitate secure communication between a device and an application (See Sikka, para [0047]).
As per claim 21, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the media of claim 1,
Furthermore, Sikka discloses:
wherein the method further comprises outputting, by the keyboard, a visual attestation on the keyboard that the secure mode is active (The full physical display of the physical machine can be switched between domains to exclusively display the screen of any single domain, Sikka, para [0045]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez with Sikka in order to effectively facilitate secure communication between a device and an application (See Sikka, para [0047]).
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 20220245287 A1) hereinafter referred to as Fernandez, in view of Sikka et al (US 20160034702 A1) in further view of Ozolins et al. (US 11403379 B2), hereinafter referred to as Ozolins
As per claim 4, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the media of claim 1,
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
in response to the secure-mode initiation request, communicating, by the input device, authentication data to the input destination
Ozolins discloses:
in response to the secure-mode initiation request, communicating, by the input device, authentication data to the input destination (A client computer may transmit request and the security device communicates with the computing device to authenticate the user, Ozolins, col 1, lines 49-52).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with computer keyboard with secure authentication features (Ozolins). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Ozolins in order to secure user authentication integrating hardware-based security into keyboard (See Ozolins, col 1, lines 49-52)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 20220245287 A1) hereinafter referred to as Fernandez, in view of Sikka et al (US 20160034702 A1) in further view of Matthews et al (US 20160344717 A1)
As per claim 5, Fernandez and Sikka discloses the media of claim 4, wherein
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
the authentication data includes an authentication certificate.
Matthews discloses:
the authentication data includes an authentication certificate (The server authentication data, such as a certificate (as an example), is data that is used by the candidate node 150 to configure the node 150 for authentication by the server 122-1 when the server 122-1 communicates with the node 150 over a secured temporary network 170, Matthews, para [0014]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with communicating a cluster and a node (Matthews). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Matthews in order to use an authentication certificate to authentication a device (See Matthews, para [0014])
Claim(s) 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 20220245287 A1) hereinafter referred to as Fernandez, in view of Sikka et al. (US 20160034702 A1) in further view of Pemmaraju et al (US 20140040635 A1), hereinafter referred to as Pemmaraju.
As per claim 10, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the method of claim 8, wherein
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
the input destination is an application in control focus.
Pemmaraju discloses:
the input destination is an application in control focus (When a user presses a key on the keyboard, the keyboard device driver receives scan codes from the keyboard, which are sent to the keyboard layout where they are translated into messages and posted to the appropriate window in the application, Pemmaraju, claim 10 and para [0009]. Securing keystrokes between a keyboard and an application on a computing device).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with securing keystrokes from being intercepted between a keyboard and browser (Pemmaraju).It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Matthews in order to in order to enable the user to enter sensitive information without the keystrokes being intercepted (See Pemmaraju, para [0009]).
As per claim 14, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the method of claim 8, wherein
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
the security application for the keyboard is installed on the keyboard
Pemmaraju discloses:
the security application for the keyboard is installed on the keyboard (Keylogger is a software program that runs in the background and they can be bundled as a part of software that a user downloads for free, Pemmaraju, para [0006]- [0008]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with securing keystrokes from being intercepted between a keyboard and browser (Pemmaraju).It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Matthews in order to in order to enable the user to enter sensitive information without the keystrokes being intercepted (See Pemmaraju, para [0009]).
Claim(s) 11,12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 20220245287 A1) hereinafter referred to as Fernandez, in view of Sikka et al. (US 20160034702 A1) in further view of Mathur et al. (US 20150379287 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mathur.
As per claim 11, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the method of claim 8,
wherein
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
Mathur discloses:
the input destination is a container that leverages a host operating system, wherein the host operating system is installed on the computing device (A security layer is deployed with the container and mediates access between the container and the host OS, Mathur, para [0032]. This is an idea of an input destination being a container and the container is described as leveraging the host OS by depending on OS services through the mediated layer).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with provision of secure application containers (Mathur). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Mathur in order to in order to in order to effectively reduce data security threats (See Mathur, para [0032])
As per claim 12, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the method of claim 8, further
comprising
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
receiving, in response to the secure-mode initiation request, a validation certificate for the keyboard
Mathur discloses:
receiving, in response to the secure-mode initiation request, a validation certificate for the keyboard (During the configuration of the application container, the application may be authorized and given a unique and secure identifier such as a digital certificate, Mathur, para [0023]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with provision of secure application containers (Mathur). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Mathur in order to in order to in order to effectively reduce data security threats (See Mathur, para [0032])
As per claim 13, Fernandez and Sikka disclose the method of claim 8, wherein
However, Fernandez in view of Sikka does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
the security application for the keyboard is associated with a driver for the keyboard, wherein the driver and the security application are installed at a driver layer of an operating system installed on the computing device
Mathur discloses:
the security application for the keyboard is associated with a driver for the keyboard, wherein the driver and the security application are installed at a driver layer of an operating system installed on the computing device (The security layer may be implemented as part of the OS as a kernel module or at a virtualization layer, Mathur, para [0059]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Fernandez with Sikka by encrypted human interface keyboard (Fernandez) and preventing unsecure data access (Sikka) with provision of secure application containers (Mathur). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernandez and Sikka with Mathur in order to in order to in order to effectively reduce data security threats (See Mathur, para [0032])
Conclusion
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 RAGHAVENDER CHOLLETI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/RAGHAVENDER NMN CHOLLETI/Examiner, Art Unit 2492
/RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492