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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose encryption on a graphics card. Yamato, newly cited, teaches that a GPU (graphics card) is capable of performing encryption functions. See Yamato [0214].
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, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vembu et al. (US 2009/0245521) in view of Wigdor et al. (US 2015/0220216) in view of Cook (US 2024/0249033) in view of Yamato (US 2023/0385178).
In regard to claim 1, Vembu disclosed a system comprising:
a graphics card comprising a first storage area accessible by an operating system and a second storage area inaccessible by the operating system; Vembu Figure 1A and
a processing device, coupled to the graphics card, to perform operations comprising:
cause, via one or more drivers associated with the operating system, a first screen to be presented in a graphical user interface (GUI) at a user device based on data read from the first storage area; Vembu [0086] and
cause, via one or more drivers associated with the graphics card, a second screen to be presented in the GUI based on data read from the second storage area, wherein the second screen overlays a portion of the first screen and presents one or more selectable inputs for authentication. Vembu Figure 6 item 68, overlays graphics in interior window on display, [0086]
Vembu failed to disclose wherein an input using the one or more selectable inputs is not accessible by the operating system. However, Wigdor disclosed wherein an input using the one or more selectable inputs is not accessible by the operating system. See Wigdor [0101]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bypass the CPU and operating system and send inputs straight to the GPU in Vembu for purposes of causing a secure environment for operating a remote computing session.
Wigdor and Vembu failed to disclose encrypting an input.
However, Cook disclosed encrypting an input. Cook [0038], where a secure mode encrypts keyboard outputs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encrypt the inputs in the Wigdor / Vembu combination since Vembu disclosed a secure channel between software and hardware and Cook disclosed encrypting an input in a secure mode in order to secure the inputs of the Wigdor / Vembu combination from outside review.
Wigdor, Vembu, and Cook failed to disclose performing encryption on a graphics card.
However, Yamato teaches that a GPU (graphics card) is capable of performing encryption functions. See Yamato [0214].
Wigdor taught the use of a graphics card. Cook disclosed encryption. It would have been obvious to perform the encryption in the Wigdor, Vembu, and Cook combination on a GPU or graphics card or any accelerator card in order to speed up encryption operations in the Wigdor/Vembu/Cook combination.
In regard to claim 2, Vembu disclosed:
receive, at the graphics card, an authentication request for an application or a device, wherein the data is read from the second storage area responsive to receiving the authentication request. Vembu [0025], [0033], [0086]
Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato in view of Choi et al. (US 2012/0019456).
In regard to claim 3, Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato failed to disclose:
receive, via the GUI at the user device, one or more inputs; and
compare the one or more inputs with a stored value.
However, Choi disclosed:
receive, via the GUI at the user device, one or more inputs; Choi [0075] and
compare the one or more inputs with a stored value. Choi [0075]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to compare an input to a stored value to perform the authentication in Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato for security purposes.
In regard to claim 4, Vembu /Wigdor / Cook / Yamato / Choi disclosed:
determine the one or more inputs satisfy the stored value; Choi [0075]
authenticate the one or more inputs responsive to determining the one or more inputs satisfy the stored value; Choi [0075]
encrypt the one or more inputs; Vembu [0051] and
output the encrypted one or more inputs to an application or device. Vembu [0051]
In regard to claim 5, Vembu / Wigdor / Cook / Yamato / Choi disclosed:
determine the one or more inputs fail to satisfy the stored value; Choi [0075] and
refrain from authenticating the one or more inputs responsive to determining the one or more inputs fail to satisfy the stored value. Choi [0075]
In regard to claim 7, Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato failed to disclose the one or more selectable inputs are one of characters, numbers, alphanumeric characters, alphabet letters, words, symbols, images, or puzzle elements.
However, Choi disclosed the use of selectable screen images on a touch screen. Choi [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select images when performing an authentication in Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato for ease of user input.
In regard to claim 8, Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato failed to disclose the one or more selectable inputs can be selected via cursor movement keys, a cursor, or touch on the GUI.
However, Choi disclosed the one or more selectable inputs can be selected via cursor movement keys, a cursor, or touch on the GUI. Choi [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use touch as an input on a GUI in Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato for ease of user operation.
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato in view of Ohno et al. (US 2011/0202693).
In regard to claim 6, Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato failed to disclose:
generate, via the one or more drivers associated with the graphics card, a random position for the second screen to be presented in the GUI.
However, Ohno disclosed moving a button to a random position for display on a screen. Ohno [0125]. This is “generate, via the one or more drivers associated with the graphics card, a random position for the second screen to be presented in the GUI.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to randomize presentation of display elements such as a button in Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato for purposes of authenticating the user is a person and not a bot.
In regard to claim 9, Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato failed to disclose:
generate, via the one more drivers associated with the graphics card, a random position within the second screen for each selectable input of the one or more selectable inputs.
However, Ohno disclosed moving a button to a random position for display on a screen. Ohno [0125]. This is “generate, via the one more drivers associated with the graphics card, a random position within the second screen for each selectable input of the one or more selectable inputs.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to randomize presentation of display elements such as a button in Vembu in view of Wigdor in view of Cook in view of Yamato for purposes of authenticating the user is a person and not a bot.
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
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 Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights