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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second external web location" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Dependent Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second external web location" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Dependent Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Mian et al (“Mian”, US 20150317643).
Regarding Claim 1, Mian teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an authenticity software platform, an indication of an external web action (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document.);
determining, by the authenticity software platform, a first provenance for a first external web location at which the web action occurs (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The first provenance is the IP address.);
determining, by the authenticity software platform, a second provenance for an external result occurring in response to the web action (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The second provenance is the geo-location. The external result is the events related to the signature ceremony which are captured in response to the user signing a document.);
and determining, by the authenticity software platform, an extant of trust based at least in part on the first and the second provenance for the result (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The first provenance is the IP address. The second provenance is the geo-location. The external result is the events related to the signature ceremony which are captured in response to the user signing a document. The extant of trust is the security identifier (SID).).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Bhandarkar et al (“Bhandarkar”, US 20170272249).
Regarding Claim 2, Mian teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Mian teaches comprising: determining, by the authenticity software platform, a third provenance of publication of the identifier at the first external web location (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The first provenance is the IP address. The second provenance is the geo-location. The third provenance is the hardware device. The external result is the events related to the signature ceremony which are captured in response to the user signing a document. The extant of trust is the security identifier (SID).);
and wherein the extant of trust is further based in part on the third provenance (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The first provenance is the IP address. The second provenance is the geo-location. The third provenance is the hardware device. The external result is the events related to the signature ceremony which are captured in response to the user signing a document. The extant of trust is the security identifier (SID).).
Mian does not explicitly teach determining, by the authenticity software platform, the web action comprises a selection of a digital media identifier previously generated by the authenticity software platform prior to the web action; digital media identifier.
Bhandarkar teaches determining, by the authenticity software platform, the web action comprises a selection of a digital media identifier previously generated by the authenticity software platform prior to the web action (Fig. 6, elements {620, 630, 640}, par 66-71; The digital media identifier is the electronic contact address which can be a social media account handle. The web action is the signing of the document.);
digital media identifier (Fig. 6, elements {620, 630, 640}, par 66-71; The digital media identifier is the electronic contact address which can be a social media account handle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mian with the contact address of Bhandarkar because it allows for users to provide an address so that they may receive the signature request at an address of their choosing (Bhandarkar; par 67-69).
Regarding Claim 3, Mian and Bhandarkar teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2.
Mian does not explicitly teach wherein publication of the digital media identifier at the first external web location occurred prior to the web action.
Bhandarkar teaches wherein publication of the digital media identifier at the first external web location occurred prior to the web action (Fig. 6, elements {620, 630, 640}, par 66-71; The digital media identifier is the electronic contact address which can be a social media account handle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mian with the contact address of Bhandarkar because it allows for users to provide an address so that they may receive the signature request at an address of their choosing (Bhandarkar; par 67-69).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Allaire et al (“Allaire”, US 20070038931).
Regarding Claim 4, Mian teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Mian teaches further comprising: wherein determining the first provenance for the external web location comprises: determining the first external web location corresponds to a first user account (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The first provenance is the IP address. The first user account is the user ID.),
Mian does not explicitly teach defining, by the authenticity software platform, a trust relationship between a plurality of different affiliate entities; user account for accessing the authenticity software platform; the first user account participating in the trust relationship.
Allaire teaches defining, by the authenticity software platform, a trust relationship between a plurality of different affiliate entities (par 348);
user account for accessing the authenticity software platform (par 348);
the first user account participating in the trust relationship (par 348).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mian with the trusted network of Allaire because it allows for users to access multiple sites using a single login.
Regarding Claim 5, Mian and Allaire teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4.
Mian does not explicitly teach wherein defining the trust relationship occurs prior to the web action.
Allaire teaches wherein defining the trust relationship occurs prior to the web action (par 348; The web action is logging in.).
Regarding Claim 6, Mian and Allaire teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4.
Mian further teaches wherein determining the second provenance for the external result comprises: determining a source of the external result corresponds to a user account (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The first provenance is the IP address. The user account is the user ID.),
Mian does not explicitly teach a second user account for accessing the authenticity software platform, the second user account participating in the trust relationship.
Allaire teaches a second user account for accessing the authenticity software platform (par 348),
the second user account participating in the trust relationship (par 348).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mian with the trusted network of Allaire because it allows for users to access multiple sites using a single login.
Regarding Claim 7, Mian and Allaire teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6.
Mian does not explicitly teach wherein the external result comprises accessing a second external web location provided by the second user account.
Allaire teaches wherein the external result comprises accessing a second external web location provided by the second user account (par 250; par 299; The second external web location is the email address.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mian with the trusted network of Allaire because it allows for users to access multiple sites using a single login.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Levkowetz et al (“Levkowetz”, US 20100325247).
Regarding Claim 8, Mian teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Mian does not explicitly teach wherein determining the extant of trust occurs prior to accessing the second external web location due to the web action.
Levkowetz teaches wherein determining the extant of trust occurs prior to accessing the second external web location due to the web action (par 44; The extant of trust is the certificate which could have been pre-distributed. The second external web location is the IP address.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mian with the pre-distribution of the certificate of Levkowetz because it allows for the reusing of existing certificates, thereby conserving resources.
Regarding Claim 9, Mian and Levkowetz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Mian teaches further comprising: sending, by the authenticity software platform, a message data suitable for display at the first external web location, the message data communicates the extant of trust (Fig. 16, elements {12, 14, 88}, par 82; The external web action is the electronic signing of the document. The second provenance is the geo-location. The external result is the events related to the signature ceremony which are captured in response to the user signing a document. The message is the ISID made part of the document.).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patel (US 20090328207), Abstract - Various techniques are provided for verifying the authenticity of software applications. Such techniques are particularly useful for verifying the authenticity of software applications used in online transactions involving users, payment service providers, and/or merchants. In one example, a set of application identifiers associated with a plurality of authenticated software applications are maintained and a verification request is received comprising an application identifier associated with an unverified software application. A token is generated in response to the verification request if the application identifier is in the set of application identifiers. The generated token is passed to the unverified software application. A user token is received and processed to determine whether the unverified software application is one of the authenticated software applications. A verification request is sent based on the processing. Additional methods and systems are also provided.
Eitel et al (US 20030079141), Abstract - The invention relates to a method for securing a networked system comprising system components having hardware and software modules connected via a system bus. According to the invention, the system components each comprise an authentication feature for the hardware modules and/or a further authentication and/or integrity securing feature each for the software modules. Further, a central testing module attached to the system bus for testing the authenticity features and/or the integrity securing features is provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444