DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 March 2026 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 2, 9, and 15-17 have been amended. Claims 3, 7, and 13 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 15-19 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Scott, US Patent Application Publication 2015/0278487, in view of Castinado et al, US Patent 12099618, and Gutierrez et al, US Patent 11157505, and with particular reference to amended independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that Scott, individually, does not disclose new limitations relating to source and receiver communication devices sending registration requests (pages 17-18 of the present response). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that some of the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the multiple communication applications comprise an email application, a video conference application, and a social networking application”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant more specifically argues that Scott is silent on sending an OTT application to a communication device in response to receiving a fingerprint (page 18 of the present response, citing Scott, paragraph 0103). However, at least Scott discloses both devices sending registration requests to enroll in a verification service (see Scott, paragraphs 0045, 0053, 0105) and sending and installing an OTT application in response to the registration (see Scott, paragraphs 0039-0041 and 0098-0102, application installed and used for verification). Therefore, the combination of references at least suggests the limitations of the claims as amended.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to Figure 9 is withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is moot in light of the cancellation of the claims. The rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a receiving user” in line 17. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user or a distinct user. The claim further recites “the receiving user” in lines 20 and 44-45. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user, the second given receiving user, or the receiving user associated with the receiver communication device. The claim additionally recites “the OTT application” and “the multiple communication applications” in lines 23-24. Although it appears reasonable that the same OTT application would be installed on both the source and receiver communication devices, it is not clear whether the same multiple communication applications would be present on the source and receiver devices. The claim also recites “the communication application” in lines 27-28, 37, and 65. It is not clear to which of the plural communication applications these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the receiving user” in line 6. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user, the second given receiving user, or the receiving user associated with the receiver communication device.
Claim 9 recites “a receiving user” in line 11. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user or a distinct user. The claim further recites “the receiving user” in lines 13-14 and 39. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user, the second given receiving user, or the receiving user associated with the receiver communication device. The claim additionally recites “the OTT application” and “the multiple communication applications” in lines 19-20. Although it appears reasonable that the same OTT application would be installed on both the source and receiver communication devices, it is not clear whether the same multiple communication applications would be present on the source and receiver devices. The claim also recites “the communication device” in line 21. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the source or receiver communication device. The claim further recites “the communication application” in lines 22, 31, and 49-50. It is not clear to which of the plural communication applications these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the receiving user” in line 5. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user, the second given receiving user, or the receiving user associated with the receiver communication device.
Claim 15 recites “a source communication device” in line 8. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same source communication device recited in line 5. The claim further recites “a receiving user” in line 14. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user or a distinct user. The claim additionally recites “the receiving user” in lines 16-17 and 35. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the first given receiving user, the second given receiving user, or the receiving user associated with the receiver communication device. The claim also recites “the OTT application” and “the multiple communication applications” in lines 22-23. Although it appears reasonable that the same OTT application would be installed on both the source and receiver communication devices, it is not clear whether the same multiple communication applications would be present on the source and receiver devices. The claim further recites “the communication application” in lines 39-40. It is not clear to which of the plural communication applications these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, US Patent Application Publication 2015/0278487, in view of Castinado et al, US Patent 12099618, and Gutierrez et al, US Patent 11157505.
In reference to Claim 1, Scott discloses a system that includes a source communication device, a receiver communication device, and a verification system (VS) server, where the source device is configured to send the VS server a first registration request for enrolling in a verification service that includes a first digital ID (paragraphs 0045, 0053, 0105, registration) and in response receive and install an over-the-top (OTT) application for multiple communication applications (paragraphs 0039-0041 and 0098-0102, application installed and used for verification) and the receiver device is configured to send the VS server a second registration request for enrolling in the verification service that includes a second digital ID (paragraphs 0045, 0053, 0105, registration) and in response receiving and installing an over-the-top (OTT) application for multiple communication applications (paragraphs 0039-0041 and 0098-0102, application installed and used for verification); where the source device is further configured to send to a communication of the receiver communication device a first message including a first digital ID of a sending user and send by the OTT application to a verification system server a log corresponding to the message and first digital ID (see paragraph 0108; see also paragraph 0119); where the receiver device is further configured to receive a second message including a received digital ID (see paragraph 0101), send by the OTT application a verification request to the VS server and receive and display and authentication result (paragraph 0098, 0108, 0111); where the VS server is configured to receive the verification request and determine and send the authentication result (0108-0111). However, although Scott discloses an image, barcode, or graphic symbol as previously recited in canceled Claim 8 (see Figures 11A and 11B), Scott does not explicitly disclose an image configured to be recognized by a user.
Castinado discloses a verification system that includes providing digital ID that is an image configured to be recognizable by a receiving user as representing the sending user (column 7, lines 18-37, logo or image such as entity logo). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Scott to include the visual authenticity marker of Castinado, in order to indicate a degree of confidence in the authentication (see Castinado, column 12, lines 30-37).
However, neither Scott nor Castinado explicitly discloses that metadata includes data identifying the sending and receiving users, a first route of the message, and timestamps of sending and receiving the message. Gutierrez discloses a system that includes metadata that includes data identifying sender and receiver user identification and timestamps of sending and receiving (see column 20, lines 1-13) and a route of a message (column 14, lines 17-36, URL and path constitute route). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Scott and Castinado to include the specific metadata of identifiers, timestamps, and route, in order to keep the information up to date (see Gutierrez, column 20, lines 1-13).
In reference to Claims 2, 4, and 5, Scott, Castinado, and Gutierrez further disclose the VS server calculating and storing a protected hash of a first digital ID, calculating a second hash and comparing the second hash to the protected hash and comparing metadata to determine the authentication result (see Scott, paragraph 0103, for example; see also Gutierrez, column 20, lines 1-13, and column 14, lines 17-36, metadata identifiers and timestamps).
In reference to Claim 6, Scott, Castinado, and Gutierrez further disclose a graphical visual marker indicating a degree of authenticity of a communication message (Castinado, column 7, lines 18-37; see also column 12, lines 1-37).
Claims 9-12 are directed to methods corresponding substantially to the functionality of Claims 1, 2, and 4-6, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 15-19 are directed to a verification system having functionality corresponding to that of the verification server recited in Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 or the methods of Claims 9-12, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492