DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 7/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot based on the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s arguments, where this language, in accordance with the apparent scope argued by Applicant, is addressed with a well-known technique to utilize one account (in the example below, a Microsoft.com account) to authenticate with other applications/services. Thus, the instant claims stand rejected for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0254429 (Woolf) in view of Vaibhav Jain in “Login Using a Microsoft Account,” posted at < https://www.loginradius.com/blog/identity/login-using-microsoft-account> on or prior to 5/25/2022 (Jain).
With regard to claim 1, Woolf discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor; and a memory on which is stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a connection application to be provided through which information pertaining to a first user is to be displayed, wherein the connection application supports authenticating a second user to access the information pertaining to the first user that is stored in association with a web-based application (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]. Woolf provides an application that may be provided using the web, where different profiles are provided. A first user (student) has a profile that may be linked to other users (parents and teachers, for example), where each user has to be authenticated to use the system.), wherein the web-based application is an existing web-based application (Woolf: Paragraph [0085] and [0036]. The applications may both be web-based. The child uses a first learning application (web-based application), where information is stored on the use of the child application. The parent uses a distinct second learning application (connection application) that allows the parent to access information concerning the first learning application program based on successfully logging into the second learning application program and the parent being linked to the child’s account.);
receive authentication information of the second user, wherein the authentication information includes an identifier of the second user and information that the second user uses for authentication to access the web-based application (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]);
wherein the web-based application is distinct from the connection application ((Woolf: Paragraph [0085] and [0036]);
determine whether the identifier of the second user is linked to an identifier of the first user (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]);
determine whether the authentication information authenticates the second user to access the web-based application via an identity provider associated with the web-based application (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]. Authentication is used to authorize a user to access the system, where the entity providing the authentication would be some form of identity provider. Lacking details of the identity provider, whether the identity provider is separate from or a part of the web-based application, it would still be associated with the web-based application.); and
based on both a determination that the identifier of the second user is linked to the identifier of the first user and the authentication information authenticates the second user to access the web-based application, permit the second user to access the information pertaining to the first user through the connection application (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]. Users that are authenticated to use the system and are linked to a student account may access information pertaining to the student.).
Woolf fails to disclose expressly, but Jain teaches that the second user already uses the information included in the authentication information, wherein the authentication information used to access the existing web-based application is further used to obtain access through the connection application (Jain: Pages 1-3. This language, in combination with other recitations in the claim, is taken to essentially provide for a separate web application that is used for authentication purposes, similar to how a Microsoft Account was used, prior to the filing of the instant application, authenticate with other applications/services, as provided in Jain, where the Microsoft account would be an example of an existing web-based application, where the authentication information used to access the web-based application is used to obtain access through other applications, such as the claimed connection application.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to utilize a separate web application’s authentication credentials, such as Microsoft, to access other applications, such as that of Woolf, to “remove the user’s mental load to remember each password created on different websites” (Jain: Page 3, Conclusion), thus providing a more user-friendly experience in situations where a user utilizes different applications/services from different entities.
With regard to claim 2, Woolf teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to access registration data that indicates which identifiers of first users are linked to which identifiers of second users; and determine whether the identifier of the second user is linked to the identifier of the first user from the accessed registration data (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]. The links are all maintained by the system, with the system determining if specific users are linked.).
With regard to claim 3, Woolf fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the processor controls a resource gateway that authorizes a trust relationship between a consumer cloud and a school cloud for access to information associated with the school cloud (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the use of clouds were well-known in the art, and that the providing of a trust relationship between a consumer cloud and other systems were known in the art (e.g. using credentials from a user account with one cloud (e.g. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) to access other systems, such as the system of Woolf implemented as a cloud.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the system as a cloud to leverage the benefits of cloud computing, including scalability, data security, high availability, etc. Further, the use of credentials from a consumer cloud system to access other cloud systems (e.g. using Google credentials to log into other services) provides a more user friendly experience, as the user would not need to create and remember accounts for as many various services, but instead would be able to link plural services to an existing service that the user has an account with.
With regard to claim 4, Woolf fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the processor controls a resource gateway that supports authenticating the second user with an identity associated with a consumer cloud to access information of the first user with an identity associated with a school cloud (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the use of clouds were well-known in the art, and that the providing of a trust relationship between a consumer cloud and other systems were known in the art (e.g. using credentials from a user account with one cloud (e.g. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) to access other systems, such as the system of Woolf implemented as a cloud. When combined with the system of Woolf, the entry point of the resources, such as the online server system would function as a resource gateway to provide access to the datastore (Woolf: Figure 1).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the system as a cloud to leverage the benefits of cloud computing, including scalability, data security, high availability, etc. Further, the use of credentials from a consumer cloud system to access other cloud systems (e.g. using Google credentials to log into other services) provides a more user friendly experience, as the user would not need to create and remember accounts for as many various services, but instead would be able to link plural services to an existing service that the user has an account with.
With regard to claim 5, Woolf teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: deny the second user access to the information pertaining to the first user based on a determination that the identifier of the second user is not linked to the identifier of the first user; or deny the second user access to the information pertaining to the first user based on a determination that the authentication information fails to authenticate the second user (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]. When providing authentication, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any failure to authenticate would cause the system to not provide access. Further, users can only access accounts that they are linked to.).
With regard to claim 6, Woolf fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: cause display of a request as to whether the second user has previously set up the authentication information; based on a determination that the second user has not previously set up the authentication information, cause display of instructions for the second user to set up the authentication information; and receive input from the second user to the set up the authentication information (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to prompt a user that has not yet created an account (e.g. entered a login name that is not in the system, failed to authenticate, etc.) to create an account.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to display a request as to whether the second user has previously set up the authentication information; based on a determination that the second user has not previously set up the authentication information, cause the portal to display instructions for the second user to set up the authentication information; and receive input from the second user to the set up the authentication information, in accordance with standard practice for web-based accounts, to provide a better use experience, specifically for new users, to guide the users to creating accounts for the system.
With regard to claim 7, Woolf fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the identifier of the second user is associated with an identity provider of a consumer cloud, and the identifier of the first user is associated with an identity provider of a school cloud (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the use of clouds were well-known in the art, and that the providing of a trust relationship between a consumer cloud and other systems were known in the art (e.g. using credentials from a user account with one cloud (e.g. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) to access other systems, such as the system of Woolf implemented as a cloud.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the system as a cloud to leverage the benefits of cloud computing, including scalability, data security, high availability, etc. Further, the use of credentials from a consumer cloud system to access other cloud systems (e.g. using Google credentials to log into other services) provides a more user friendly experience, as the user would not need to create and remember accounts for as many various services, but instead would be able to link plural services to an existing service that the user has an account with.
With regard to claim 8, Woolf teaches that the instructions cause the processor to: determine whether the identifier of the second user was previously registered to be linked to the identifier of the first user to determine whether the identifier of the second user is linked to the identifier of the first user; and determine that the identifier of the second user is linked to the identifier of the first user based on a determination that the identifier of the second user was previously registered to be linked to the identifier of the first user (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]. If the accounts are linked, access is provided, meaning that it is determined if the user accounts (including identifiers) were previously linked.).
With regard to claim 9, Woolf teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: identify an ID registered with the first user; determine whether the identified ID matches an ID of the second user; and determine that the identifier of the second user is linked to the identifier of the first user based on the identified ID matching the email address of the second user (Woolf: Paragraph [0049]. User IDs are linked to each other. As a note, the ID registered with the first user does not need to be an ID of the first user, but may be an ID that is registered, such as one of a listing of IDs that are registered with the first user as being linked to the first user.).
Woolf fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art teaches that the IDs are e-mail addresses (more specifically, Official Notice is taken that the use of an e-mail address as a user ID was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have ID being an e-mail address to conform to a typical practice which removes the need to have the user register a specific user ID and remember such a user ID with the system.
With regard to claim 10, Woolf teaches wherein the first user is a student of an educational institution and the second user is a guardian of the first user (Woolf: Figures 10-13 and Paragraphs [0036] and [0064]).
With regard to claim 11, Woolf teaches wherein the information pertaining to the first user comprises at least one of a calendar, assignments, grades, attendance records, statuses of assignments, and courses (Woolf: Figure 11. The user activity summary panel and vocabulary status panel provide assignments that were performed. Due to the language “at least one of,” only one item from the listing needs to be disclosed to disclose the invention in as much detail as required by the instant claim.).
With regard to claim 13, Woolf teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: register the second user (Woolf: Paragraph [0050]).
With regard to claims 14 and 18, the instant claims are similar to claim 1, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claims 15-17 and 19-20, the instant claims are similar to claims 3-4 and 7, above, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolf in view of Jain, and further in view of Blackboard, as shown in “Academic Technology Launchpad: Tools in Blackboard,” posted at <https://libguides.madisoncollege.edu/technology/blackboard-tools> on July 24, 2021 (Blackboard) as evidenced by “What is Blackboard Collaborate? How to use Blackboard's video-conferencing rooms,” posted on December 11, 2020 at < https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/what-is-blackboard-collaborate> (Collaborate).
With regard to claim 12, Woolf fails to disclose, but Blackboard teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: provide a link for a video conferencing application in the portal (Blackboard: Page 2. Blackboard allows tools to be added, one of which is Collaborate, which, as shown in Collaborate, is a video conference platform.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a link for video conferencing application in the portal to simplify the establishment of such video conferencing sessions, which would allow the parents and teachers to efficiently collaborate about the students, such as parent/teacher conferences.
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 SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
