Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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, 4-9, 11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulersen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0105064) in view of Marien (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0189505).
Regarding Claim 1,
Gulersen discloses a system for secure authentication information retrieval for authentication tokens using augmented reality, the system comprising:
One or more processors (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description, as well as below citations; processor(s), for example); and
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description, as well as below citations; memory/ies with applications, programs, etc., for example):
Receiving, from a user device associated with a user, a request for accessing authentication information for an authentication token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 27, 28, 35, 39-42, 50, 51, 71-73, and associated figures; server receiving request for data, such as options, benefits, offers, and the like, or for updating such, from another device, such as cardholder interface device, for example);
Retrieving a user profile for the user, wherein the user profile comprises token identifiers for one or more authentication tokens associated with the user and authentication information of each of the one or more authentication tokens (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 27-29, 35, 36, 39-42, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; database/repository with information, such as user name, credit card number, benefits information, options information, offer information, and the like, as examples);
Receiving an indication that an interaction has been initiated between the user device and the authentication token, wherein the indication includes a token identifier for the authentication token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; access to server to get offers, benefits, or the like, based on an image with a remuneration device, including an identifier therefore, such merchant information, a card number, credit card name, or the like, for example);
Determining, based on comparing the token identifier for the authentication token and the token identifiers from the user profile, whether the authentication token is associated with the user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; finding personalized offers, benefits, or the like for a particular user based on the card information, for example);
In response to determining that the authentication token is associated with the user, rendering the authentication information into a graphical overlay for display on the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; rendering of any of the overlays, GUIs including overlays, and the like, for example); and
Transmitting to the user device the graphical overlap for displaying, on a display of the user device, the authentication information over an image of the authentication token captured via an imaging sensor included in the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; sending the above to the other device (e.g., cardholder interface device, phone, etc.), for example);
But does not explicitly disclose that the request comprises a session identifier associated with the user device, that the retrieving is based on the session identifier, and that the interaction is an NFC interaction.
Marien, however, discloses that the request comprises a session identifier associated with the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 33-37, 58-63, and associated figures; sending session identifier to server (perhaps as part of external data), for example);
That the retrieving is based on the session identifier (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 20, 29, 33-37, 58-63, and associated figures; all retrievals and accesses are performed after authentication, including authentication of data, such as a signed or encrypted dynamic variable (perhaps including additional data as well) including external data, including session ID, for example); and
That the interaction is an NFC interaction (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 30-37, 58-60, and associated figures; NFC communications, for example. Many additional portions of Marien also discuss NFC communications and NFC Data Exchange Format transfers, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the authentication techniques of Marien into the AR system of Gulersen in order to provide additional types of authentication, to provide better protection for applications and data being accessed, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is a method claim that is broader than system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is a method claim that is broader than system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is a medium claim that is broader than system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 2,
Gulersen as modified by Marien discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Gulersen discloses determining, based on the user profile, one or more user actions associated with the authentication token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; finding personalized offers, benefits, or the like for a particular user based on the card information, for example);
Rendering one or more options for performing the one or more user actions into a second graphical overlap for display on the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; rendering of any of the overlays, GUIs including overlays, and the like, for example); and
Transmitting to the user device the second graphical overlay for displaying, on the display of the user device, the one or more options for performing the one or more user actions (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; sending the above to the other device (e.g., cardholder interface device, phone, etc.), for example).
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is a method claim that is broader than system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is a medium claim that is broader than system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 4,
Gulersen as modified by Marien discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Gulersen discloses determining whether a threshold period of time has been exceeded since transmitting the graphical overlay for display (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 66, 67, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; timer value for a particular overlay (e.g., 3 seconds) until it fades into another overlay that obfuscates some of the information on the previous overlay (e.g., in figure 12, 1204 no longer has experiences listed and no longer shows various things (for example, the plant on the bookshelf in the back of the room), since they have another overlay over them, for example);
In response to determining that the threshold period of time has been exceeded, rendering the authentication information into an obfuscated graphical overlay for display on the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 66, 67, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; as just described, for example); and
Transmitting to the user device the obfuscated graphical overlay for displaying on the display of the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 66, 67, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; as just described, for example).
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is a method claim that is broader than system claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is a medium claim that is broader than system claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7,
Gulersen as modified by Marien discloses the method of claim 5, in addition, Gulersen discloses that determining that the authentication token is associated with the user comprises:
Comparing the token identifier for the authentication token and the token identifiers from the user profile (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; using the card information to look up personalized offers, benefits, or the like for a particular user based on the card information, for example); and
Determining that the token identifier for the authentication token corresponds to one of the token identifiers from the user profile (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; the above lookup only occurs when the identifier is present, for example).
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is a medium claim that corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 9,
Gulersen as modified by Marien discloses the method of claim 8, in addition, Gulersen discloses in response to receiving a second indication of a user selection for performing a user action of the one or more user actions, transmitting a command for performing the user action (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 37, 39-43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 72, and associated figures; as well as figures 2 and 4-10, which show various embodiments of overlays on images including remuneration devices, for example; as selections are made, further overlays are sent, for example).
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is a medium claim that corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulersen in view of Marien and Sheller (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0282868).
Regarding Claim 3,
Gulersen as modified by Marien discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Gulersen discloses transmitting, to the user device, a command to terminate display of the graphical overlay of the authentication information (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; providing another overlaid image to display, replacing the previous one, which results in terminating of display of the previous overlay, for example);
But does not explicitly disclose receiving a second indication that the user is not within proximity of the user device as determined by a second imaging sensor included in the user device.
Sheller, however, discloses receiving a second indication that the user is not within proximity of the user device as determined by a second imaging sensor included in the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 16, 29, 36, 42, 44, 53, and associated figures; determining whether user is still present based on a single pixel or low power camera, for example); and
Transmitting, to the user device, a command to terminate display of the graphical overlay of the authentication information (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 16, 29, 36, 42, 44, 53, and associated figures; terminating session upon failing re-authentication since user is no longer present, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the continuous authentication techniques of Sheller into the AR system of Gulersen as modified by Marien in order to allow the system to verify that a user is still present using a low amount of power, to ensure that malicious users are not given access to documents based on detecting their presence, to reduce the opportunities for spoofed authentication mechanisms, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is a method claim that is broader than system claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is a medium claim that is broader than system claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulersen in view of Marien and Wong (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0181290).
Regarding Claim 12,
Gulersen as modified by Marien discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Gulersen discloses transmitting to the user device a command to terminate display of the graphical overlay of the authentication information (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29, 38-42, 47, 50, 71-73, and associated figures; providing another overlaid image to display, replacing the previous one, which results in terminating of display of the previous overlay, for example); and
Marien discloses that the interaction is an NFC interaction and that there is an indication that the NFC interaction has ended (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 18, 30-37, 58-60, and associated figures; NFC, NFC disconnected for a period, such as 0.5 seconds, etc., for example);
But does not explicitly disclose that the transmitting is in response to the indication.
Wong, however, discloses in response to an indication that the interaction has ended, transmitting to the user device a command to terminate display of the information (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 39-43 and associated figures; blocking access to application based on user moving away from computer and this being detected based on a mobile device moving away from computer, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to incorporate the session management techniques of Wong into the AR system of Gulersen as modified by Marien in order to allow the system to easily detect when a user moves away from a computer and disable access to protected data, to ensure that users are at the devices for which their access is currently being granted, to follow users through the use of numerous different devices are different locations, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is a medium claim that corresponds to method claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulersen in view of Marien and Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0198397).
Regarding Claim 19,
Gulersen as modified by Marien may not explicitly disclose determining whether session data associated with the session identifier is present in a session store, and in response to determining that the session data is not present in the session store, transmitting, to the user device, a command for displaying a request for access information on a display of the user device.
Park, however, discloses determining whether session data associated with the session identifier is present in a session store (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 32-46 and associated figures; providing old session ID, if it’s old, allowing login and presenting new session ID, for example); and
In response to determining that the session data is not present in the session store, transmitting, to the user device, a command for displaying a request for access information on a display of the user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 32-46 and associated figures; as just described, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the session reestablishment techniques of Park into the AR system of Gulersen as modified by Marien in order to allow for efficient session reestablishment after termination of previous access, to reduce unnecessary data traffic and wasted time, to allow for session state to be maintained, even across multiple sessions, and/or to increase security in the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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 D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights