DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-20
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 19
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: -
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Previous Rejections Withdrawn
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim(s) 1-10 is/are withdrawn based on the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 11/18/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golwalkar (US Pub. 2017/0208055) in view of Smith (US Pub. 2017/0316626) in view of Paun (US Pat. 11,064,149) and further in view of Debets (US Pub. 2015/0317060).
With respect to Claim 1, Golwalkar teaches a system for electronically authenticating a user, the system comprising: an authentication application stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: a video QR code generator application that is configured to generate, using a processor, a video QR code upon receipt of a request, by a user using a user device, for access to a computer system, (Video QR of multiple images will be taught later. para. 81; non-transitory computer readable medium and processor. Para. 13; application. Fig. 1b, paras. 18-22; User seeks to authenticate on a tv device. System generates a code (YA82Q). para. 25; code may be a QR code rather than a text code.)
and a video QR code analysis application that is configured to capture the video QR code using a camera and analyze the captured video QR code using the processor; (para. 25; capturing QR code via camera. paras. 22-23, 57, 61; system authenticates via matching codes.)
wherein the authentication application is configured to electronically authenticate the user by: obtaining, from the video QR code generator application using the processor, the video QR code upon an authentication attempt by the user; causing the video QR code to be played, using the processor, as a moving QR code on a display of a second device; (A moving QR code will be taught later. Fig. 1b, para. 22; generated code YA82Q is sent to a browser on a laptop and displayed.)
obtaining, from the user device using the processor, a plurality of images of the video QR code captured over time by the user device during the time interval that the video QR code is played on the display; (paras. 23-25; Code YA82Q is entered on the tv. In embodiments in which the code is a QR code, the displayed code may be captured by a camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to locate the analysis engine at the service provider in order for the service provider to pass upon the authentication of its user, see para. 15.)
But Golwalkar does not explicitly teach a video QR code.
Smith, however, does teach a video QR code; a plurality of images of the video QR code captured over time (paras. 16-20; system presents a short looping video of a series of QR codes and authenticates via multiple images of the QR codes.)
and authenticating the user upon verifying, using the video QR code analysis application, that the QR code in multiple images of the plurality of images matches the QR code in the video QR code before providing the user with access to the computer system. (First see Golwalkar, paras. 22-23, 57, 61; system authenticates via matching codes. Then see Smith, paras. 16-20; system presents a short looping video of a series of QR codes and authenticates via multiple images of the QR codes.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Golwalkar with the video QR code to improve the security of the code. (Smith, paras. 3, 15)
But modified Golwalkar does not explicitly teach QR code in motion.
Paun, however, does teach a moving QR code; wherein the video QR code comprises a video that shows a QR code, which has been generated by a QR code generator, in motion over a time interval; (A QR code generated by a QR code generator was previously taught. Examiner initially asserts that Smith renders this feature obvious on its own. Smith discloses a plurality of QR codes played on a short loop, one or more of which include access information, see paras. 16-20. Smith therefore rendered obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date a plurality of QR code images which must be combined in order to authenticate, which Examiner asserts meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a QR code “in motion.” Regardless, the specification states that movement of a QR code can take the form of position or rotation, so to explicitly teach that QR codes can be translated or rotated within an image see Paun, col. 8, ln. 32 to col. 9, ln. 47; system may generate a QR code rotated and positioned within an image. Col. 2, lns. 11-26; QR code may be in video)
and wherein the QR code in the video QR code comprises a pattern that is two-dimensional and remains the same during display of the video QR code, and is subject to a change in position or orientation, during the time interval (col. 1, lns. 5-11; QR codes are two-dimensional. Col. 4, lns. 25-49; QR code generated for video. QR code may be dynamically placed. col. 8, ln. 32 to col. 9, ln. 47; system may generate a QR code rotated and positioned within an image. For a QR code that remains the same, Examiner notes that Paun changes the code to blend with the video, so the natural usage of some videos would see no pattern change, see Paun, col. 2, ln. 52 to col. 3, ln. 9. Further, Applicant admits that QR codes that do not change exist, see Spec, para. 2; “A standard QR code is static in that it does not change.” See also Golwalkar, paras. 25, 55; QR code in place of text code. See also Debets, Figs. 2-3, paras. 33-42, 219-221, 226; same QR code may be viewed from different angles. See also Smith, paras. 15, 18, 21, 43; QR codes loop. Further, to the extent that Smith and Paun disclose that in a video setting one can vary the QR code itself as well as its orientation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to not vary the pattern in order to present the same information upon scanning.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Golwalkar with the QR code in motion in order to prevent the QR code from being visually disruptive (Paun, col. 1, lns. 22-29) and further because positioning or rotating an image were known manners of generating distinct images.
But modified Golwalkar does not explicitly teach determining whether the plurality of images of the video QR code that have been captured by the user device at different times during the time interval match corresponding images in the video QR code that were displayed on the second device.
Debets, however, does teach and determining, using the video QR code analysis application, whether the plurality of images of the video QR code that have been captured by the user device at different times during the time interval match corresponding images in the video QR code that were displayed on the second device at the corresponding times when the plurality of images were captured; (Examiner asserts Golwalkar teaches, see Golwalkar, paras. 22-23, 57, 61; system authenticates via matching codes. Regardless, Examiner will also cite Debets, Figs. 2-3, paras. 33-42, 219-221, 226; QR code that is captured at different angles can make different connections to call different data. System can also measure distance. Therefore the system can identify different angles and take different action based upon them. Paras. 30-32; system accounts for perspective distortion. For comparison, see Golwalkar, paras. 22-23, 57, 61; system authenticates via matching codes.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Golwalkar with the determination that the images match the angle of corresponding images in order to identify that a code exists despite distortion. (Debets, paras. 30-32)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Paun also teaches wherein movement of the QR code in the video QR code comprises a change in one or more of the position or the orientation of the QR code. (col. 8, ln. 32 to col. 9, ln. 47; system may generate a QR code rotated and positioned within an image.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
And Golwalkar also teaches while the pattern remains the same (paras. 25, 55; QR code in place of text code. Applicant also admits a pattern remaining the same is known. See Spec, para. 2; “A standard QR code is static in that it does not change.” See also Debets, Figs. 2-3, paras. 33-42, 219-221, 226; same QR code may be viewed from different angles.)
wherein the determination by the video QR code analysis application whether the plurality of images of the video QR code that have been captured at different times match the corresponding images in the video QR code that were displayed comprises determining whether the position and orientation of the QR code in the plurality of images and the displayed images match. (paras. 22-23, 57, 61; system authenticates via matching codes. See also Debets, Figs. 2-3, paras. 33-42, 219-221, 226; QR code that is captured at different angles can make different connections to call different data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to match the position and orientation for the same reason it was obvious to create a series of codes, namely to improve the security of the codes and help prevent duplication or forgery, see Smith, para. 2.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Paun also teaches wherein movement of the video QR code includes a rotation of the QR code in the video QR code from a first angular orientation to a second angular orientation. (col. 8, ln. 32 to col. 9, ln. 47; system may generate a QR code rotated and positioned within an image.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 4, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Golwalkar also teaches wherein the authentication application is further configured to verify a geographic location of the user based on a detected location of the user device that captures the plurality of images of the video QR code and a location of the display. (paras. 31-33; System may use near field communication to send a key when a user device approaches a particular location to ensure that the device is at the location when it generates the QR codes.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Golwalkar also teaches wherein the authentication application is further configured to instruct the user device when to capture the plurality of images captured by the user device. (para. 25; camera interface is launched when a QR code is used.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Smith also teaches wherein the video QR code further includes time stamp information; (paras. 15-16, 24-26; QR codes use the current date and time in an encryption scheme. See also Golwalkar, para. 33; codes may only be valid for a predetermined length of time.)
and the authentication application is configured to instruct the user device to capture the plurality of images at specific times while the video QR code is played on the display based on the time stamp information in the video QR code. (paras. 15-16, 24-26; system uses current date and time to encrypt/decrypt, which means that the codes cannot be used outside of a small window. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to instruct capture at the particular time in order to allow decryption and authenticating using the code.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Smith also teaches wherein the plurality of images obtained from the user device comprise the video QR code in its entirety. (para. 20; information needed for access may be in only one, a small subset or a plurality of the QR codes.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Smith also teaches wherein the plurality of images obtained from the user device comprise select images from the video QR code. (para. 20; information needed for access may be in only one, a small subset or a plurality of the QR codes.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 9, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 1, and Golwalkar also teaches further comprising a user device-based application, resident on the user device, that is configured for the user to request access to the computer system and to capture the plurality of images of the video QR code. (para. 15; native application. Para. 25; camera interface)
With respect to Claim 11, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Golwalkar also teaches an electronic authentication computer program product comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor on a first computer system: (para. 81; media including instructions that can be executed by a processor. Para. 75; hard drive.)
With respect to Claims 12-16, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-6, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claims 17-18, they are substantially similar to Claims 14-15, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 19, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 20, it is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golwalkar (US Pub. 2017/0208055) in view of Smith (US Pub. 2017/0316626) in view of Paun (US Pat. 11,064,149), in view of Debets (US Pub. 2015/0317060) and further in view of Grigg (US Pub. 2016/0173504).
With respect to Claim 10, modified Golwalkar teaches the system of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach a mobile banking application.
Grigg, however, does teach wherein the user device-based application comprises a mobile banking application, and the computer system comprises a banking system. (para. 70; mobile device includes mobile banking application. Fig. 2, para. 39; network system in communication with mobile device. See also Golwalkar, paras. 13-16; authenticating with a service provider.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Golwalkar with the mobile banking application in order to provide authentication for mobile banking services.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 8-9 that the amended claims remove “engines” and replace them with “applications” and that takes the elements out of means-plus. Examiner agrees and withdraws the 112b in view of f.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 10-12 that “the Golwalkar, Smith and Paun references do not disclose or suggest authentication using a video QR code as claimed in which the same two-dimensional QR code is displaying during the time interval.”
Examiner will add the Debets reference, but not because Golwalkar, Smith and Paun fail to disclose a video QR code in which the same two-dimensional QR code is displayed during a time interval.
Golwalkar teaches that a single QR code is sufficient to convey authentication information. Smith discloses authentication using a plurality of QR codes that change on a loop. The additional codes provide increased security over a single code, which could simply be screenshotted. See Smith, paras. 3, 15; “This stops people from simply copying the QR code and using it as a ticket.” However, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized in reading Smith that any plurality of images would improve the security in the same manner, since any series of images would “stop people from simply copying” a single QR code. Paun discloses multiple modifications that could be made to a QR code, including the claimed orientation and translation modifications. While Smith discloses a loop containing, e.g., 4 different QR codes, Golwalkar and Paun evidence that a loop could also consist of a single QR code that is rotated or translated three times. This teaches the limitation. Further, for the reasons below Examiner will cite Debets, which also teaches a 2D QR code that is subject to a change in orientation.
Examiner cites Debets largely to show that a capture device can distinguish the orientation of a QR code. Examiner thinks the citation is unnecessary because the determining step as currently amended only raises the question of whether a device can determine match between what was displayed and what was captured, and Golwalkar discloses a check to make sure that the code displayed on the screen is the code that is inputted by the user (or, in alternate embodiments, a displayed QR code is scanned). But Examiner cites Debets to compact prosecution and head off any complaints or amendments surrounding Golwalkar’s disclosure being the capture of a nonmoving code. Smith discloses the capture of multiple images, and now Debets discloses that in capturing images of QR codes, the capture device can determine the angle of a code. The combination allows for a capture of multiple images of a QR code where the orientation is known to the capturing device.
Regardless, the determining step is not argued against, and Examiner thinks it is well known that a computer can identify if two paired images (or even two videos, which is nothing more than a plurality of two-image pairings) are the same. When Applicant limited the video QR code to be a code that “remains the same during display of the video QR code” the claim essentially transitioned from authentication based on a sequence of QR codes to an image/video comparison claim, i.e. once dynamic-information-over-time was removed by making the code itself static the claim actually became far more obvious. Examiner has not cited a video-comparison reference in the rejection (but see, e.g., Chang (US Pub. 2009/0154806)) largely because Examiner does not think it compacts prosecution to create an entirely new rejection just to change it back in the future, but Examiner notes that Claim 1 could probably be rejected over Golwalkar and Chang because “video QR code” as used in the claim essentially means “a video, in which at least some of the content of the video is a QR code object.”
The amended claims are taught above. All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449