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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 11,736,292) in view of “Verify the Google ID token on your server side,” hereinafter referred to as Google (with reliance on Verify the Google ID token on your server side | Sign In With Google) and “Streamer-Friendly Mode,” hereinafter referred to as TV (with reliance on Streamer-Friendly Mode - TV Tropes).
Re claim 1, Wang discloses a method comprising: receiving a request via a network communication, the request part of a call to a service, the call associated with a virtual device (fig. 3, 301 and 302, the virtual device being the user and their device); extracting a security token from the request (304); and performing: an identity operation with an identity of the virtual device (fig. 5, 504); an analytics operation with the virtual device (505, wherein verification of information is considered an analytics operation as information is analyzed to determine its validity); and a refusal operation after the attempting fails to discern the game streaming provider identity or ascertains that the game streaming provider identity identifies an unauthorized entity (col. 24:1-11). However, Wang is silent on attempting to discern a verified game streaming provider identity based on at least the security token, and a game configuration operation with the game. Google teaches a system similar to Wang utilizing security tokens to verify account information between server and client. Additionally, Google verifies the ID token is valid by also ensuring that the ID token is properly signed by Google (see “2. Verify the ID token”), wherein Google in this example is the provider identity. TV teaches the concept of Streamer-Friendly Mode which provides options in games specifically tailored for streaming (“To this end, game developers began including options specifically tailored for streamers. These can include removing or replacing copyrighted music, hiding personal information, or other adjustments to make streamers' lives easier”).
It would have been obvious to implement the server verification of Google and the options of TV in order to increase the security of communication between server and client by ensuring both the identities of the server and client, and providing additional options for users of the system tailored specifically for streaming, increasing convenience and usability of the method.
Re claim 2, Wang discloses the identity operation comprises bypassing registration of the virtual device in a device directory (9:15-29, by using open authorization, the user is not required to perform registration and memorize an account and password when logging in to the resource request application).
Re claim 4, see the rejection to claim 1 regarding TV and a game setting tailored for use when a game is running in a game streaming environment (streamer mode is considered such a setting).
Re claim 7, Wang discloses sending a response to the request via the computing network comprising the result of the attempting (fig. 3 illustrating the back and forth communication between the server and user).
Re claim 8, Wang discloses changing an in-game configuration (fig. 3, 305 and 306, wherein access to resources for an application is considered a change in configuration).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Google and TV as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tran (US 2007/0015583).
Re claim 3, Wang does not explicitly disclose altering a quality-of-service threshold to correspond with a streaming latency instead of a home play latency. Tran teaches a remote gaming system wherein a quality of service (QoS) is negotiated in order to minimize latency and bandwidth consumption between a game server and client (par. [0197]). It would have been obvious to implement adjustable QoS as taught by Tran in the system of Wang in order to allow the system to dynamically adjust settings of the connection based on current networking conditions, enhancing and optimizing the quality of the network connection, thereby improving the networking and streaming performance for users.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Google and TV as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chan et al (US 2015/0350186).
Re claim 5, Wang is silent on selecting the call for bearer token insertion based on a call or service identity. Chan teaches an authorization token system wherein a request for protected resources includes an access token which inserts access token information into a cookie associated with the request, a header, and/or a message body, including bearer token information ([0060]). Cookie, header, and message body information is considered to be an identity of a call and/or a service as it identifies the contents of the tokens to the system.
It would have been obvious to implement the bearer tokens of Chan with the system of Wang in order to provide a convenient and standardized access system for protected resources.
Re claim 6, Chan teaches performing the selecting within a proxy ([0079]).
Re claim 9, see the rejection to claim 1. Wang does not explicitly disclose the use of HTTP requests. Chan teaches such ([0036]). It would have been obvious to implement HTTP requests for network communication in order to utilize a widely implemented standard, increasing the ease, speed, and efficiency of use and deployment.
Re claim 10, Chan teaches HTTPS ([0036]).
Re claim 11, Wang discloses the identity operation comprises bypassing registration of the virtual device in a device directory (9:15-29, by using open authorization, the user is not required to perform registration and memorize an account and password when logging in to the resource request application).
Re claim 12, see the rejection to claim 1 regarding TV and a game setting tailored for use when a game is running in a game streaming environment (streamer mode is considered such a setting).
Re claim 13, see the rejection to claim 5.
Re claim 14, Wang discloses sending a response via the network after the attempting succeeds in discerning the verified game streaming provider identity (fig. 3). Google has been discussed above regarding verifying provider identity.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Google, TV, and Chan as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cha et al (US 2012/0072979).
Re claim 15, Wang is silent on the token, extracting, and attempting are transparent to the game. Cha teaches an open authentication system with transparent network authentication ([0099]). It would have been obvious to render the authentication, token, and other networking implementations to remain transparent to the user as taught by Cha in order to obfuscate the security protocols to end users, reducing the appearance of the complexity of the system and hiding unnecessary procedures from users who do not need access or knowledge of such information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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., inferring the identity of a separate streaming provider entity based on the token, and the “game streaming provider identity” correspond[ing] to an entity defining the execution environment in which the game is run, rather than the identity of a user or a client application requesting access to a resource) 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).
Regarding the arguments for limitation (d) in claim 1, the examiner notes that with the inclusion of the “or” limitation, the prior art need only teach one of the two limitations. Therefore, since Wang teaches a refusal operation after identifying an unauthorized entity (again, see col. 24:1-11, where the login request is denied after subsequently receiving the login request that uses the access token, i.e. unauthorized), the limitation is taught by Wang.
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). As such, while TV does not itself teach token-derived identity determination, this has already been disclosed by Wang.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 7/6/26, with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights