DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 24 June 2026. By this response, Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. New Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, 15-19, and 21-26 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, 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, first, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments generally appear to be directed only to the Castinado reference individually. 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).
More specifically, Applicant argues that the overwriting as now recited “is a dynamic, real-time rendering operation within the communication application’s interface” (page 19 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 the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a dynamic, real-time rendering operation) 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). Applicant further argues that the pending claims recite a different sequence of steps from Castinado, where the receiver communication device allegedly “first receives the communication message containing the second digital ID, the OTT application displays a graphical display of that digital ID at the selected communication application, sends a verification request to the VS server, receives the authentication result back, and then overwrites the displayed digital ID with the visual identifier” (page 20 of the present response). However, the independent claims do not require this sequence of steps, and although such an order may be implied by new dependent Claim 23 (which is not clearly supported by the specification as detailed below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement), this claim also does not explicitly require the exact sequence described. The independent claims only require displaying the graphical display of the second digital ID and overwriting that display, with no particular timing limitations related thereto. Applicant also argues that “the display and overwriting steps occur at the receiver’s device after the authentication result is returned” (page 20), which explicitly contradicts the above alleged sequence of steps where the display appears to occur before the authentication result is returned. It is further noted that independent Claim 15 explicitly states that the authentication result “enables the receiver communication device to display a graphical display of the second digital ID… and to overwrite the graphical display of the second digital ID” which also contradicts the alleged sequence of steps which are argued to be in contrast with the disclosures of Castinado.
However, because other portions of the arguments are generally persuasive with respect to the distinction between overwriting a digital ID with a visual identifier representing an authentication result (as claimed) and overlaying an a visual representation of an authentication result into a data file (see page 19 of the present response, for example), the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. See below for further detail.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 2, 10, and 16 have been amended to recite “a perceptual hash function”. However, although the specification generally describes hash functions of various kinds, there appears to be no mention of perceptual hash functions. Further, new Claim 23 recites that the OTT application is “configured to display the graphical display of the second digital ID in the second communication message… pending receipt of the authentication result… and to overwrite the graphical display of the second digital ID with the visual identifier upon receipt of the authentication result”. Although the specification generally describes displaying and overwriting the second digital ID, there appears to be no mention of such actions occurring pending receipt or upon receipt of the authentication result, respectively. Additionally, new Claim 25 recites “the mobile carrier is associated with both the source communication device and the receiver communication device”. Although the specification generally mentions a mobile carrier, there appears to be no mention of a mobile carrier associated specifically with either the source or receiver device. Therefore, there is not clearly proper antecedent basis in the specification for the claimed subject matter. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 41-44, it appears that the clause “wherein the selected communication application of the source communication device and the selected communication application of the receiver communication device are a same [sic] communication application” may be more clear if moved to the end of the function of sending the first communication message recited in lines 29-33.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 16-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 have been amended to recite “a perceptual hash function”. Applicant has cited paragraphs 0023, 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0039-0042 for support for the claims as amended (age 17 of the present response), although no further explanation of which amendments are alleged to be supported has been provided. However, although paragraphs 0041-0042 describe authentication by comparing hash values, and paragraph 0037 generally describes hash functions of various kinds, there appears to be no mention of perceptual hash functions in these paragraphs or elsewhere in the specification. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 23 recites that the OTT application is “configured to display the graphical display of the second digital ID in the second communication message… pending receipt of the authentication result… and to overwrite the graphical display of the second digital ID with the visual identifier upon receipt of the authentication result”. Applicant has cited paragraphs 0023, 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0039-0042 for support for the claims as amended (age 17 of the present response), although no further explanation of which amendments are alleged to be supported has been provided. Although paragraph 0042 generally describes overwriting the second digital ID, there appears to be no mention of displaying the second digital ID pending receipt of the authentication result or overwriting the display upon receipt of the authentication result. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 25 recites “the mobile carrier is associated with both the source communication device and the receiver communication device”. Applicant has cited paragraphs 0023, 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0039-0042 for support for the claims as amended (age 17 of the present response), although no further explanation of which amendments are alleged to be supported has been provided. Although paragraph 0032 generally mentions a mobile carrier, there appears to be no mention of a mobile carrier associated specifically with either the source or receiver device (rather than associated with users). Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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, 15-19, and 21-26 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 user receiving a communication from the sending user as representing the sending user” in lines 9-11. It is not clear what the phrase “as representing the sending user” is intended to modify; from the placement it appears to state that the sending user represents the sending user, which appears to be redundant. The claim further recites “a user receiving a communication from the receiver user as representing the receiving user” in lines 23-24. First, it is not clear what the phrase “as representing the receiving user” is intended to modify; from the placement it appears to state that the receiving user represents the receiving user, which appears to be redundant. Further, it is not clear whether “the receiving user” is intended to refer to the “user receiving a communication from the sending user” in lines 9-10, the “receiving user of the receiver communication device” in lines 20-21, or a different receiving user. The claim additionally recites “a same communication application” in lines 43-44. This is grammatically unclear, although it appears that this may be intended to recite “the same communication application” or similar. The claim also recites “the receiving user of the second communication message” in lines 50-51. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is not clearly a previous recitation of a receiving user of the second message, only that the second message is received by the selected communication application of the receiver communication device. The claim further recites “display, by the OTT application of the receiver communication device, a graphical display of the second digital ID in the second communication message at the selected communication application, and overwrite, by the OTT application of the receiver communication device, the graphical display of the second digital ID with a visual identifier representing the authentication result” in lines 72-79. However, the relative timing of these steps is not clear as to when the display is overwritten or what causes the overwriting to occur. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the receiving user of the first communication message” in line 6. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Although the claims mention plural receiving users (i.e. a user receiving a communication from the sending user, a receiving user of the receiver communication device, and a user receiving a communication from the receiving user), there appears to be no mention of any user specifically receiving the first communication message.
Claim 9 recites “a user receiving a communication from the sending user as representing the sending user” in lines 6-8. It is not clear what the phrase “as representing the sending user” is intended to modify; from the placement it appears to state that the sending user represents the sending user, which appears to be redundant. The claim further recites “a user receiving a communication from the receiver user as representing the receiving user” in lines 14-15. First, it is not clear what the phrase “as representing the receiving user” is intended to modify; from the placement it appears to state that the receiving user represents the receiving user, which appears to be redundant. Further, it is not clear whether “the receiving user” is intended to refer to the “user receiving a communication from the sending user” in lines 6-7, the “receiving user of the receiver communication device” in line 12, or a different receiving user. The claim additionally recites “a same communication application” in lines 30-31. This is grammatically unclear, although it appears that this may be intended to recite “the same communication application” or similar. The claim also recites “the receiving user of the second communication message” in lines 44. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is not clearly a previous recitation of a receiving user of the second message, only that the second message is received by the selected communication application of the receiver communication device. The claim further recites “displaying, by the OTT application of the receiver communication device, a graphical display of the second digital ID in the second communication message at the selected communication application, and overwriting, by the OTT application of the receiver communication device, the graphical display of the second digital ID with a visual identifier representing the authentication result” in lines 53-59. However, the relative timing of these steps is not clear as to when the display is overwritten or what causes the overwriting to occur. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the receiving user of the first communication message” in lines 5-6. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Although the claims mention plural receiving users (i.e. a user receiving a communication from the sending user, a receiving user of the receiver communication device, and a user receiving a communication from the receiving user), there appears to be no mention of any user specifically receiving the first communication message.
Claim 15 recites “a user receiving a communication from the sending user as representing the sending user” in lines 9-11. It is not clear what the phrase “as representing the sending user” is intended to modify; from the placement it appears to state that the sending user represents the sending user, which appears to be redundant. The claim further recites “a user receiving a communication from the receiver user as representing the receiving user” in lines 16-18. First, it is not clear what the phrase “as representing the receiving user” is intended to modify; from the placement it appears to state that the receiving user represents the receiving user, which appears to be redundant. Further, it is not clear whether “the receiving user” is intended to refer to the “user receiving a communication from the sending user” in lines 9-10, the “receiving user of the receiver communication device” in lines 14-15, or a different receiving user. The claim additionally recites “the receiving user of the first communication message” in lines 33-34. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although the claim mentions plural receiving users (i.e. a user receiving a communication from the sending user, a receiving user of the receiver communication device, and a user receiving a communication from the receiving user), there appears to be no mention of any user specifically receiving the first communication message. The claim also recites “the receiving user of the second communication message” in lines 46-47. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is not clearly a previous recitation of a receiving user of the second message, only that the second message is received by the selected communication application of the receiver communication device. The claim further recites “the authentication result enables the receiver communication device to display a graphical display of the second digital ID in the second communication message at the selected communication application of the receiver communication device and to overwrite the graphical display of the second digital ID with a visual identifier representing the authentication result” in lines 55-61. However, the relative timing of these steps is not clear as to when the display is overwritten or what causes the overwriting to occur. The claim additionally recites “a same communication application” in lines 63-64. This is grammatically unclear, although it appears that this may be intended to recite “the same communication application” or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 24 recites “the timestamp comparison” in line 6. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, 15-19, and 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as applicable, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although at least Scott discloses displaying a received digital ID and at least Castinado discloses displaying a visual identifier representing an authentication result, the closest prior art does not clearly teach or suggest both displaying a second digital ID in a received communication message and overwriting the display of the second digital ID with a visual identifier representing the authentication result, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
It is noted that amendments which change the scope of the claims may require reconsideration of the determination of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caton et al, US Patent 9390460, discloses a system for dynamic generation of embedded security features in a document where a hash value is replaced with an authentication image.
Wolff, US Patent 9626674, discloses a system in which images are used as graphical tokens for visual representation of authentication.
Komiyama, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0266179, discloses a method in which a verification code in an image is replaced with another image.
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 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
Prosecution Insights