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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an application filed on 05/16/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 06/28/2024, 06/04/2025, 07/01/2025, 08/04/2025, 08/12/2025, 08/28/2025, 09/23/2025, 10/22/2025, 11/04/2025 and 01/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-6, 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borunda et al. (US 2016/0294831), hereinafter Borunda, in view of Tan (US 2020/0192575). Borunda is cited by Applicant in the IDS filed on 11/04/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Borunda discloses a computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising (Borunda, Fig. 2: computing device 202 (computer system)):
one or more processors (Borunda, [0118]); and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (Borunda, [0118]):
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface (Borunda, [0027]: computing device executes an application (user interface) for sending a request to client device 204);
subsequent to displaying the first user interface, receiving, from a first external device separate from the computer system, a first set of digital identification information corresponding to a first user (Borunda, [0030]: computer device receives a driver’s license (set of digital identification information) from client device (external device));
subsequent to receiving the first set of digital identification information, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital identification information (Borunda, [0030]: computer device displays the received driver’s license (indication)); and
subsequent to displaying the first indication, ceasing display of the first indication (Borunda, [0033]: the driver’s license is displayed for a limited amount of time),
Borunda does not explicitly disclose including: in accordance with a determination that a first set of criteria is satisfied, ceasing display of the first indication without maintaining access to the first set of digital identification information; and in accordance with a determination that a second set of criteria different from the first set of criteria is satisfied, ceasing display of the first indication while maintaining access to at least a portion of the first set of digital identification information.
However, Tan discloses disclose including:
in accordance with a determination that a first set of criteria is satisfied, ceasing display of the first indication without maintaining access to the first set of digital information (Tan: [0071]: sharing ends when a session timer expires; [0153]: system determines when a recipient is provided digital content with “view-only” access (first set of criteria); in this case, the recipient will not have access to the content when the session timer expires (i.e., displayed ceased)); and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of criteria different from the first set of criteria is satisfied, ceasing display of the first indication while maintaining access to at least a portion of the first set of digital information (Tan: [0071]: sharing ends when a session timer expires, [0153]: system determines when a recipient is provided digital content with “downloadable” access (second set of criteria); in this case, the recipient will have access to the downloaded content when the session timer expires (i.e., displayed ceased)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda and Tan before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system that displays digital identification information to a recipient as taught by Borunda, to include enabling digital content to be provided as view-only or as downloadable as taught by Tan. Once Tan’s teaching is incorporated, Borunda’s digital identification information would be displayed to the recipient with either view-only permission or download permission, enabling the recipient to, respectively, either temporarily view or retain the received identification information. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve privacy, security and user control over sensitive identification information.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Borunda discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions (Borunda, [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Borunda does not explicitly disclose wherein displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital identification information comprises: in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, displaying at least a portion of the first set of digital identification information.
However, Tan discloses wherein displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital information comprises: in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, displaying at least a portion of the first set of digital information (Tan, [0153]: digital content received as “view-only” can be viewed) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda and Tan before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system that displays digital identification information to a recipient as taught by Borunda, to include enabling digital content to be provided as view-only or as downloadable as taught by Tan. Once Tan’s teaching is incorporated, Borunda’s digital identification information would be displayed to the recipient with either view-only permission or download permission, enabling the recipient to, respectively, either temporarily view or retain the received identification information. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve privacy, security and user control over sensitive identification information.
Regarding claim 3, Borunda does not explicitly disclose wherein displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital identification information comprises: in accordance with a determination that the second set of criteria is satisfied, displaying at least a portion of the first set of digital identification information.
However, Tan discloses wherein displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital information comprises: in accordance with a determination that the second set of criteria is satisfied, displaying at least a portion of the first set of digital information (Tan, [0153]: digital content received as “downloadable” can be viewed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda and Tan before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system that displays digital identification information to a recipient as taught by Borunda, to include enabling digital content to be provided as view-only or as downloadable as taught by Tan. Once Tan’s teaching is incorporated, Borunda’s digital identification information would be displayed to the recipient with either view-only permission or download permission, enabling the recipient to, respectively, either temporarily view or retain the received identification information. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve privacy, security and user control over sensitive identification information.
Regarding claim 4, Borunda does not explicitly disclose wherein displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital identification information comprises: in accordance with a determination that the second set of criteria is satisfied, forgoing display of the first set of digital identification information.
However, Tan discloses wherein displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital information comprises: in accordance with a determination that the second set of criteria is satisfied, forgoing display of the first set of digital information (Tan, [0071], [0153]: a session timer is applied to digital content provided as “downloadable”; sharing ends (i.e., forgoing display) when the timer expires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda and Tan before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system that displays digital identification information to a recipient for a limited period of time as taught by Borunda, to include enabling digital content to be provided as view-only or as downloadable as taught by Tan. Once Tan’s teaching is incorporated, Borunda’s digital identification information would be displayed to the recipient with either view-only permission or download permission, enabling the recipient to, respectively, either temporarily view or retain the received identification information. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve privacy, security and user control over sensitive identification information.
Regarding claim 5, Borunda discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for:
subsequent to displaying the first user interface and prior to receiving the first set of digital identification information, detecting that the first external device satisfies proximity criteria with respect to the computer system (Borunda, [0065]: requesting access to a digital ID requires close proximity); and
subsequent to detecting that the first external device satisfies proximity criteria with respect to the computer system, providing the first external device with first information identifying one or more types of digital identification information being requested by the computer system (Borunda, [0065]: requesting access to a digital ID requires close proximity; Fig. 2, item 206: the type of digital identification being requested is displayed on client device 204 (external device)).
Regarding claim 6, Borunda discloses wherein providing the first external device with the first information identifying the one or more types of digital identification information being requested by the computer system causes the first external device to display the one or more types of digital identification information being requested by the computer system (Borunda, Fig. 2, item 206: the type of digital identification being requested is displayed on client device 204 (external device)).
Regarding claim 9, Borunda discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: subsequent to providing the first external device with the first information, receiving an indication of user confirmation received at the first external device to transmit the first set of digital identification information from the first external device to the computer system (Borunda, [0084]: “The police department 704 may request the driver's license … The individual may be presented with the option to provide their digital driver's license to the police department. If the individual agrees… The indication of acceptance is transmitted to the police department 704 (step 9) thereby enabling the police department 704 to obtain and display the driver's license”).
Regarding claim 16, Borunda does not explicitly disclose wherein ceasing display of the first indication is performed in response to one or more user inputs corresponding to a user request to cease display of the first indication.
However, Tan discloses wherein ceasing display of the first indication is performed in response to one or more user inputs corresponding to a user request to cease display of the first indication (Tan, [0176]: “a security mode 1060 window will appear near the end of their secure session, notifying the client/recipient that their secure session is drawing to a close … If the client/recipient chooses not to extend their secure session they can select no 1075. Selecting no 1075 will cause the secure session to end at the original time preset by the owner/administrator”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda and Tan before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system that displays digital identification information to a recipient for a limited period of time as taught by Borunda, to include a session expiration warning and extension mechanism as taught by Tan. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate securely terminating the time-limited display of identification information when the recipient does not extend the session.
Regarding claim 17, Borunda discloses wherein ceasing display of the first indication is performed in response to a determination that the first indication has been displayed for a threshold duration of time (Borunda, [0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Borunda discloses wherein:
the computer system is a device of a first type (Borunda, Fig. 2, item 202: desktop device); and
the first external device is a second device of the first type (Borunda, Fig. 2, item 204: mobile device).
Claims 7, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borunda in view of Tan, further in view of Pritchard et al. (US 2016/0323317), hereinafter Pritchard.
Regarding claim 7, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose wherein the first information further comprises identification of: a first subset of the one or more types of digital identification information that will be stored by the computer system; and a second subset of the one or more types of digital information that will not be stored by the computer system.
However, Pritchard discloses wherein the first information further comprises identification of (Pritchard, abstract: personal computing device receives data and policy indications (first information) from a requester):
a first subset of the one or more types of digital identification information that will be stored by the computer system (Pritchard, [0068]: personal identification data (first subset) will be held permanently); and
a second subset of the one or more types of digital information that will not be stored by the computer system (Pritchard, [0068]: insurance data (second subset) will only be held until the transaction has been completed (i.e., not stored)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Pritchard before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system for requesting identification information from a user as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include providing a retention policy as part of the request as taught by Pritchard. The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the user which identification information will or will not be retained, in order to improve user transparency, user trust and privacy compliance.
Regarding claim 8, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose wherein providing the first external device with the first information causes the first external device to display: an indication of the first subset of the one or more types of digital identification information that will be stored by the computer system; and an indication of the second subset of the one or more types of digital information that will not be stored by the computer system.
However, Pritchard discloses wherein providing the first external device with the first information causes the first external device to display (Pritchard, abstract, [0068]: personal computing device displays data and policy indications (first information) from a requester):
an indication of the first subset of the one or more types of digital identification information that will be stored by the computer system Pritchard, [0068]: personal identification data (first subset) will be held permanently); and
an indication of the second subset of the one or more types of digital information that will not be stored by the computer system (Pritchard, [0068]: insurance data (second subset) will only be held until the transaction has been completed (i.e., not stored)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Pritchard before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system for requesting identification information from a user as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include providing a retention policy as part of the request as taught by Pritchard. The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the user which identification information will or will not be retained, in order to improve user transparency, user trust and privacy compliance.
Regarding claim 15, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose wherein displaying the first user interface comprises displaying an indication of one or more types of digital identification information being requested by the computer system.
However, Pritchard discloses wherein displaying the first user interface comprises displaying an indication of one or more types of digital identification information being requested by the computer system (Pritchard, [0007], [0065]: requester selects, and therefore displays, the retention policy for each data (types of digital identification information)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Pritchard before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system for requesting identification information from a user as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include providing a retention policy as part of the request as taught by Pritchard. The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the user which identification information will or will not be retained, in order to improve user transparency, user trust and privacy compliance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borunda in view of Tan, further in view of Kapczynski (US 2018/0046856).
Regarding claim 10, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose wherein the user confirmation received at the first external device comprises biometric authentication of the first user at the first external device.
However, Kapczynski discloses wherein the user confirmation received at the first external device comprises biometric authentication of the first user at the first external device (Kapczynski, Figs. 3A-3C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Kapczynski before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an identification information exchange system as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include biometric authentication on the external device as taught by Kapczynski. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the authorized user approves transmission of the digital identification information, thereby improving system security.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borunda in view of Tan, further in view of Ren (US 2025/0284505).
Regarding claim 11, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital identification information, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first set of user inputs corresponding to a user request to perform a first function; and in response to receiving the first set of user inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, forgoing performing the first function.
However, Ren discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for:
while displaying the first indication indicative of receiving the first set of digital identification information, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first set of user inputs corresponding to a user request to perform a first function (Ren, Fig. 1A, left image: discloses receiving a knock (user input) to screenshot a window containing privacy content (digital identification information)); and
in response to receiving the first set of user inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, forgoing performing the first function (Ren, Fig. 1A, right image, [0058]: system determines a flag has been set for the window (first set of criteria satisfied) and does not perform the screenshot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Ren before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a digital identification information exchange system that enables digital content to be shared in a view-only mode as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include a screenshot blocking technique as taught by Ren. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that view-only identification information cannot be retained through screen capture, thereby improving privacy and security.
Regarding claim 12, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose wherein the first function is a screen recording function.
However, Ren discloses wherein the first function is a screen recording function (Ren, Fig. 1A, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Ren before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a digital identification information exchange system that enables digital content to be shared in a view-only mode as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include a screenshot blocking technique as taught by Ren. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that view-only identification information cannot be retained through screen capture, thereby improving privacy and security.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borunda in view of Tan and Ren, further in view of Udell et al. (US 2003/0126215), hereinafter Udell.
Regarding claim 13, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to receiving the first set of user inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, and the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to perform a first function that is not ceasing display of the first indication, forgoing performing the first function; and in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, and the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to cease display of the first indication, performing the first function by ceasing display of the first indication.
However, Ren discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to receiving the first set of user inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, and the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to perform a first function that is not ceasing display of the first indication, forgoing performing the first function (Ren, Fig. 1A, [0058]: when the system determines a flag has been set for a window (first set of criteria satisfied) and that a user is attempting to take a screenshot (function) of the window, it does not perform the screenshot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Ren before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a digital identification information exchange system that enables digital content to be shared in a view-only mode as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include a screenshot blocking technique as taught by Ren. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that view-only identification information cannot be retained through screen capture, thereby improving privacy and security.
Furthermore, the combination of Borunda, Tan and Ren does not explicitly disclose in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, and the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to cease display of the first indication, performing the first function by ceasing display of the first indication.
However, Udell discloses in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria is satisfied, and the first set of user inputs correspond to a user request to cease display of the first indication, performing the first function by ceasing display of the first indication (Udell, [0045]: when a document can only be read one time before it is destroyed (first set of criteria) and the document is closed (user input), the system deletes the document (ceases to display)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan, Ren and Udell before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a digital identification information exchange system that enables digital content to be shared in a view-only mode as taught by Borunda, Tan and Ren, to include deleting the document after it is closed by the user when in read-once/view-only mode as taught by Udell. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve protection of sensitive identification data after viewing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borunda in view of Tan, further in view of Harshith (US 2024/0015205).
Regarding claim 14, Borunda and Tan do not explicitly disclose wherein: the first user interface includes a first selectable option that is selectable to scan a computer-readable code to receive digital identification information; and the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the first user interface, including the first selectable option, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option; and in response to receiving the selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a computer-readable code scanning user interface that includes display of content being captured by one or more cameras of the computer system.
However, Harshith discloses wherein:
the first user interface includes a first selectable option that is selectable to scan a computer-readable code to receive digital identification information (Harshith, [0155]: mobile device has interface for user to select a scan option to scan an identity code (digital identification information)); and
the one or more programs further include instructions for:
while displaying the first user interface, including the first selectable option, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option (Harshith, [0155]); and
in response to receiving the selection input corresponding to selection of the first selectable option, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a computer-readable code scanning user interface that includes display of content being captured by one or more cameras of the computer system (Harshith, [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borunda, Tan and Harshith before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a digital identification information exchange system as taught by Borunda and Tan, to include utilizing scanning interface for scanning the identity code/digital identification information as taught by Harshith. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize a convenient and widely used mechanism for obtaining digital identification information prior to displaying in the viewing session.
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ow (US 2015/0371057) discloses a system in which a host shares digital content with oner or more recipients. One recipient may be granted download permission, where they are granted permission to receive a digital copy of the content, and a second recipient may be granted “view-only” permission, wherein they may view or stream the digital content from the host location, but may not otherwise take ownership of the content (Ow, [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458