DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 17-19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 17 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations claimed including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform acts comprising, prior to generating the content request response and in response to determining that the mobile device is an untrusted device: causing the known display device to display a second verification token; and receiving, from the mobile device, scan timings associated with the second verification token.
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, 3-10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allain et al. (US 2015/0222615) in view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0316626) and further in view of Beals et al. (US 2012/0198572).
Regarding claim 1, Allain teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting, at a subscription service server and from a display device, a content request correlated with a subscription service account [Server 102 maintains free or paid user accounts through which various users can access content (par. 25 and 34, Fig 1-2). The server 102 registers devices and maintains a list of trusted devices 302 linked to a user account (par. 58-59, Fig. 2-3). Server 102 receives a request 406 for a specific content from untrusted device 402 associated with a user account (par. 61-63, Fig. 1, 3, 4A, and 6)]
in response to determining that the display device is not associated with the subscription service account, verifying the display device [If server 102 determines that request 406 originates from an unauthorized device, not on the list of trusted devices for the account, server 102 may initiate the authorization process (par. 59 and 63-64, Fig. 4A)] by:
receiving, from the additional device, information associated with an animated verification token [An authorization key 408, such as a QR code, a moving image, or a video, is displayed on untrusted device 402, which is perceived by sensors, such as a camera or scanner, of a trusted device 404 associated with a user account. Server 102 receives the perceived authentication key 408 from trusted device 404 (par. 64-67 and 70, Fig. 4A-4B and 6)]
determining that the information satisfies a predetermined threshold [Server 102, at this point, may compare the received key with the one that it issued and has stored, for instance inside authentication key database 270, to determine if there is a match (par. 70 and 89, Fig. 4B and 6)] and
generating a content request response based on the display device being verified [If the received authentication key matches the issued authentication key, then server 102 can authorize untrusted device's 404 access to the requested content and respond with the content or a link or code to access the content (par. 70-71 and 89, Fig. 4C and 6)].
Allain does not explicitly disclose: synchronizing a time of the display device and a time of the additional device associated with the subscription service account to a central time server associated with the subscription service to ensure that internal clocks of the display device and the additional device are accurate to the central time server; the information received from the additional device is scan timing; the animated verification token comprising a series of distinct codes displayed by the display device according to at least one known offset; and determining that the display device and the additional device are both located at a physical location based at least in part on the scan timing satisfying the predetermined threshold.
Smith teaches: synchronizing a time of the display device and a time of the additional device associated with the subscription service account to a central time server associated with the subscription service to ensure that internal clocks of the display device and the additional device are accurate to the central time server [the internal clocks of the mobile device 100 and the access control device may be slightly different from one another, so the mobile device application may synchronize with a clock on an operator's server, which may control the clocks of all access control devices, so the devices are in sync with one another (par. 24-25)]
the animated verification token comprising a series of distinct codes displayed by the display device according to at least one known offset [a series of QR codes may be displayed sequentially, each displayed for a predetermined period of time (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain and Smith before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allain by incorporating the teaching of Smith regarding synchronizing the time of the devices to a server and the animated verification token comprising a series of distinct codes displayed by the display device according to at least one known offset. The motivation for doing so would have been because the user may attempt to scan a set of QR codes, but the internal clocks of the mobile device 100 and the access control device may be slightly different from one another, which may cause a problem because the QR codes need to be scanned within a particular time period, so keeping the clocks in sync with another would overcome this problem (Smith – par. 24-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain and Smith in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Smith does not explicitly disclose: the information received from the additional device is scan timing; and determining that the display device and the additional device are both located at a physical location based at least in part on the scan timing satisfying the predetermined threshold.
Beals teaches: the information received from the additional device is scan timing and the scan timing satisfies a predetermined threshold [receiving information from scanning a matrix code, such as a QR code, including time stamps (par. 16, 22, and 27, Fig. 1 and 2). Determining whether the scanned timestamps satisfy a particular time threshold (par. 17 and 27-28, Fig. 1 and 2))]
determining that the display device and the additional device are both located at the physical location based at least in part on the scan timing satisfying the predetermined threshold [determine that the electronic devices are being utilized in the same location based on whether the timestamps satisfy a particular time threshold (par. 16-17, 27-28, and 33, Fig. 2 and 3A-3G)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain, Smith, and Beals before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allain and Smith by incorporating the teaching of Beals to determine that the display device and the additional device are both located at the physical location based at least in part on scan timing satisfying a predetermined threshold. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine whether the electronic devices are being fraudulently utilized (Beals – par. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain and Smith with Beals to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1; Allain and Smith further teach: verifying the display device further comprises: generating the animated verification token for display on the display device [Allain - server 102 may generate a unique authentication key 408, such as a moving image or a video, for display on the untrusted device (par. 64, Fig. 4A)] and
causing the display device to display the animated verification token according to the known offset [Allain - displaying the authentication key 408 on the untrusted device (par. 86, Fig. 4A). Smith - a series of QR codes may be displayed sequentially, each displayed for a predetermined period of time (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D)].
Regarding claim 4, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3; Allain and Beals further teach: receiving scan timing associated with the animated verification token displayed by the display device comprises receiving one or more scan timestamps from the additional device associated with the subscription service account [Beals – receiving information, including timestamps, from a matrix code reader, such as a smart phone associated with an account (par. 16-17, fig. 3A-3C). Allain – QR code is scanned by trusted device 404 associated with a user account (par. 64-67 and 70, Fig. 4A-4B)].
Regarding claim 5, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4; Smith further teaches: causing the display device to display the animated verification token according to the known offset comprises: causing the display device to display the animated verification token at a display timing based on the known offset and the synchronized time [a series of QR codes may be displayed sequentially, each displayed for a predetermined period of time (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D) and the timing of the devices is synchronized (par. 24-25)].
Regarding claim 6, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5; Smith and Beals further teach: determining that the scan timing relative to the display device displaying the animated verification token satisfies the predetermined threshold comprises determining that a difference between the display timing and the scan timing is within the predetermined threshold [Beals - determining a difference between the time stamps and whether the difference is within a particular time threshold (par. 16-17, 27-28, and 33, Fig. 2 and 3A-3G). Smith – Displaying a series of QR codes sequentially (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D). Determining when the QR codes are scanned and whether the QR code was scanned within a threshold amount of time (par. 24-25)].
Regarding claim 7, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6; Beals further teaches: generating the content request response based on the display device being verified comprises: generating a success message for display on the display device [displaying a message confirming success (par. 39, Fig. 3G)] and
transmitting a subscription service account verification to the display device enabling the display device to display a subscription service menu [the content provider may authorize the set top box, which the user may then be able to utilize to receive content, and typically display a menu or guide (par. 39)].
Regarding claim 8, Allain teaches: A system [(Fig. 2 and 3)] comprising:
at least one processor [processor 920 (Fig. 9A)] and
physical memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform acts [storage device 960 can include software modules for controlling the processor 920 (par. 101, Fig. 9A)] comprising:
determining that a content request correlated with a subscription service account comes from an unknown display device that is not associated with the subscription service account [Server 102 maintains free or paid user accounts through which various users can access content (par. 25 and 34, Fig 1-2). The server 102 registers devices and maintains a list of trusted devices 302 linked to a user account (par. 58-59, Fig. 2-3). Server 102 receives a request 406 for a specific content from untrusted device 402 associated with a user account. Server 102 determines that request 406 originates from an unauthorized or untrusted device because it is not on the list of trusted devices for the account (par. 59 and 63-64, Fig. 4A)]
verifying the unknown display device [If server 102 determines that request 406 originates from an unauthorized device, not on the list of trusted devices for the account, server 102 may initiate the authorization process (par. 59 and 63-64, Fig. 4A)] by:
generating an animated verification token for display on the unknown display device [server 102 may generate a unique authentication key 408 for display on untrusted device 402, the authentication key may be a moving image or video (par. 64, Fig. 4A)]
receiving, from the mobile device, information associated with the animated verification token [An authorization key 408, such as a QR code, is displayed on untrusted device 402. The QR code is perceived by sensors of trusted device 404 being a mobile device, using a camera or scanner. Server 102 receives the perceived authentication key 408 from trusted device 404 (par. 64-67 and 70, Fig. 3, 4A-4B, and 6)] and
determining that the information satisfy a predetermined threshold [Server 102, at this point, may compare the received key with the one that it issued and has stored, for instance inside authentication key database 270, to determine if there is a match (par. 70 and 89, Fig. 4B and 6)] and
in response to verifying the unknown display device, generating a content request response for the unknown display device and the mobile device [If the received authentication key matches the issued authentication key, then server 102 can authorize untrusted device's 404 access to the requested content and respond with the content or a link or code to access the content (par. 70-71 and 89, Fig. 4C and 6)].
Allain does not explicitly disclose: synchronizing a time of the display device and a time of a mobile device associated with the subscription service account to a central time server associated with the subscription service to ensure that internal clocks of the display device and the mobile device are accurate to the central time server; the information received from the mobile device is scan timings and the scan timings satisfies a predetermined threshold; the animated verification token comprising a series of distinct codes displayed by the display device according to at least one known offset; and determining that the unknown device and the mobile device are both located at the physical location based at least in part on the scan timing satisfying the predetermined threshold.
Smith teaches: synchronizing a time of the display device and a time of the mobile device associated with the subscription service account to a central time server associated with the subscription service to ensure that internal clocks of the display device and the mobile device are accurate to the central time server [the internal clocks of the mobile device 100 and the access control device may be slightly different from one another, so the mobile device application may synchronize with a clock on an operator's server, which may control the clocks of all access control devices, so the devices are in sync with one another (par. 24-25)]
the animated verification token comprising a series of distinct codes displayed by the display device according to at least one known offset [a series of QR codes may be displayed sequentially, each displayed for a predetermined period of time (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain and Smith before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Allain by incorporating the teaching of Smith regarding synchronizing the time of the devices to a server and the animated verification token comprising a series of distinct codes displayed by the display device according to at least one known offset. The motivation for doing so would have been because the user may attempt to scan a set of QR codes, but the internal clocks of the mobile device 100 and the access control device may be slightly different from one another, which may cause a problem because the QR codes need to be scanned within a particular time period, so keeping the clocks in sync with another would overcome this problem (Smith – par. 24-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain and Smith in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Smith does not explicitly disclose: the information received from the mobile device is scan timing; and determining that the unknown device and the mobile device are both located at a physical location based at least in part on the scan timing satisfying the predetermined threshold.
Beals teaches: the information received from the mobile device is scan timings and the scan timings satisfies a predetermined threshold [receiving information, such as from a smart phone, from scanning a matrix code, such as a QR code, including time stamps (par. 16, 22, and 27, Fig. 1 and 2). Determining whether the scanned timestamps satisfy a particular time threshold (par. 17 and 27-28, Fig. 1 and 2))]
determining that the unknown device and the mobile device are both located at the physical location based at least in part on the scan timing satisfying the predetermined threshold [determine that the electronic devices are being utilized in the same location based on whether the timestamps satisfy a particular time threshold (par. 16-17, 27-28, and 33, Fig. 2 and 3A-3G)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain, Smith, and Beals before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Allain and Smith by incorporating the teaching of Beals to determine that the unknown device and the mobile device are both located at the physical location based at least in part on scan timing satisfying a predetermined threshold. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine whether the electronic devices are being fraudulently utilized (Beals – par. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain and Smith with Beals to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the system of claim 8; Smith further teaches: the series of distinct codes comprises a series of quick response codes [a series of QR codes may be displayed sequentially, each displayed for a predetermined period of time (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D)].
Regarding claim 10, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the system of claim 9; Beals and Smith further teaches: receiving the scan timings associated with the animated verification token displayed by the unknown display device comprises receiving a series of scan timestamps, wherein each scan timestamp corresponds to when a quick response code is displayed by the unknown display device as scanned by the mobile device associated with the subscription service account [Smith - scanning a series of QR codes (par. 18 and 24-25, Fig. 1A-1D). Beals - receiving QR scanning information, such as from the smart phone, including time stamps (par. 16, 22, and 27, Fig. 1 and 2)].
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19; Beals and Smith further teach: determining that the scan timing relative to the display device displaying the verification token satisfies the predetermined threshold comprises: determining display timings for when the display device displayed each of the series of quick response codes according to the known offset; and determining whether differences between corresponding display timings and scan timestamps are within the predetermined threshold [Beals - determining a difference between the time stamps and whether the difference is within a particular time threshold (par. 16-17, 27-28, and 33, Fig. 2 and 3A-3G). Smith – Displaying a series of QR codes sequentially (par. 18, Fig. 1A-1D). Determining when the QR codes are scanned and whether the QR code was scanned within a threshold amount of time (par. 24-25)].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allain et al. (US 2015/0222615) in view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0316626), further in view of Beals et al. (US 2012/0198572) and further in view of Shuvi (US 2022/0301245).
Regarding claim 2, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1; Allain further teaches: determining that the display device is not associated with the subscription service account [server 102 determines that request 406 originates from an unauthorized device, not on the list of trusted devices for the account (par. 59 and 63-64, Fig. 4A)] by:
identifying an internet protocol address of the display device [receiving an IP address of the untrusted device 402 (par. 62, Fig. 4A)].
While Allain teaches receiving an IP address of the display device and referring to a list of trusted devices to determining that the display device is not to be trusted (par. 62-63), Allain, Smith, and Beals do not explicitly disclose: identifying an internet protocol address of the additional device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the internet protocol address of the display device fails to match the internet protocol address of the additional device associated with the subscription service account.
Shuvi teaches: identifying an internet protocol address of the additional device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the internet protocol address of the display device fails to match the internet protocol address of the additional device associated with the subscription service account [determining previously associated IP addresses of the user and determining the obtained IP address of the client device fails to match the previously associated IP addresses (par. 57, Fig. 1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain, Smith, Beals, and Shuvi before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Allain, Smith, and Beals by incorporating the teaching of Shuvi for identifying an internet protocol address of another device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the internet protocol address of the display device fails to match the internet protocol address of the other device associated with the subscription service account. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent unauthorized access to the content (Shuvi – par. 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain, Smith, and Beals with Shuvi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allain et al. (US 2015/0222615) in view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0316626), further in view of Beals et al. (US 2012/0198572), and further in view of Toole et al. (US 2014/0130127).
Regarding claim 11, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the system of claim 8; Allain, Smith, and Beals do not explicitly disclose: computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform an act comprising determining that the mobile device is a trusted device by: identifying a sub-network occupied by a known display device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the mobile device is on the sub-network occupied by the known display device.
Toole teaches: computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform an act comprising determining that the mobile device is a trusted device by: identifying a sub-network occupied by a known display device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the mobile device is on the sub-network occupied by the known display device [determining a client device is authorized by comparing subnet information identifying a subnet that is accessed by client device 104 to proximity information, such as subnet information of other devices that have been identified by the server and determining a match (par. 18, 36-37, and 43-44, Fig. 1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain, Smith, Beals, and Toole before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Allain, Smith, and Beals by incorporating the teaching of Toole for determining that the mobile device is a trusted device by: identifying a sub-network occupied by a known display device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the mobile device is on the sub-network occupied by the known display device. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase security in accessing the system (Toole – par. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain, Smith, and Beals with Toole to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Allain, Smith, and Beals teach the system of claim 8; Allain, Smith, and Beals do not explicitly disclose: computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform an act comprising determining that the mobile device is an untrusted device by: identifying a sub-network occupied by a known display device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the mobile device is not on the sub-network occupied by the known display device.
Toole teaches: computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform an act comprising determining that the mobile device is an untrusted device by: identifying a sub-network occupied by a known display device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the mobile device is not on the sub-network occupied by the known display device [determining a client device is unauthorized by comparing subnet information identifying a subnet that is accessed by client device 104 to proximity information, such as subnet information of other devices that have been identified by the server and determining no match (par. 18, 36-37, and 43-44, Fig. 1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Allain, Smith, Beals, and Toole before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Allain, Smith, and Beals by incorporating the teaching of Toole for determining that the mobile device is an untrusted device by: identifying a sub-network occupied by a known display device associated with the subscription service account; and determining that the mobile device is not on the sub-network occupied by the known display device. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase security in accessing the system (Toole – par. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Allain, Smith, and Beals with Toole to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaJoie et al. (US 2007/0276926) - Secondary Content Insertion Apparatus And Methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424