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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 112(d):
Applicant has canceled claims 6 and 14. As such, the corresponding rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Applicant argues that these claims do “further narrow parent claim 1… Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by specifying additional features of the operation "modifying the VR user interface to include . .. a second user interface element. .. ,the second user interface element comprising at least one animated element illustrating a potential consequence of a breach of the credential data for the user." Therefore, claim 7 does further limit the subject matter of claim 1… This further limits the features of claim by specifying features about how the recited "modifying" is performed.” Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, it is first noted that parent claim 1 recites “serving, to the user, a VR user interface.” As per [0021] and [0025] of the instant specification, “the VR host computing system may display a VR user interface to the user, where the VR user interface comprises user interface elements indicating to the user that the user’s credential data could be made more secure. The VR user interface may be provided, for example, to a VR appliance such that the user experiences the VR user interface in the virtual environment.” According to at least [0034] of the instant specification, “user computing devices 130, 132, 134 may receive the VR user interfaces 142, 144, 146 from the VR host computing system 102 and provide all or parts of the VR user interfaces 142, 144, 146 to the respective VR appliances 158, 160, 162 for display to the users 136, 138, 140.” Additionally, at least [0072]-[0073] of the instant specification describe display drivers and graphics libraries for providing display functionality.
Further, claim 1 includes “modifying the VR user interface to include a first user interface element and a second user interface element… the second user interface element comprising at least one animated element.” This is interpreted to mean providing the animated element using known display functionality such as the above-cited drivers and graphics libraries. As such, the VR user interface of claim 1 is able to display animated user interface elements.
Claim 7 is drawn to “the at least one animated element comprising a depiction of a humanoid figure with a container moving away from the user,” which does not describe any technical details such as calculating where to overlay the animated element on top of real-world objects in AR space. It also does not describe where on the display the animation is played, nor any timing, nor any protocol or other such technical details. Instead, it merely describes displaying the kind of animation that the VR user interface is already capable of displaying using display capabilities such as those in [0072]-[0073] of the instant specification. This is not considered to describe any new functionality for the VR appliance of claim 1, since it is already capable of playing such an animation (e.g., playing a particular movie in a DVD player already configured to play movies).
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Ross, however, fails to disclose or suggest any "accessing of credential data" that is based on the user's location, let alone "accessing of credential data" that is "responsive to the determining that the location of the user is within the threshold distance of the augmented reality location," as recited by claim 1. Ross discloses responding to "a thing in the view of a user of the augmented reality device." See Ross at FIG. 2, ¶31. Ross does not determine that the location of the user is near to the location of the thing. Instead, Ross detects that the thing is depicted in an image.” In response, it is first noted that [0035] of Ross states that “sensor data can be transmitted over a short distance and therefore if the AR device is receiving the sensor data the system can assume the user is within close proximity to the thing. The system determines if the user is permitted to view virtual content associated with the thing, for example, if the location of the augmented reality device is within the predefined distance or area relative to the thing.”
It is further noted that at least [0036] of Ross states that “the system (e.g., the platform 110) can confirm user access or authorization rights… Specific access rights can include, for example, credentials (e.g., username and password), a security clearance or rating, a specific title or job description, or other distinguishing characteristics. The access rights can further include, for example, classification level, status, user title, user job description or function, proximity to the thing, an identity of the user, identifier of the user device, or a combination of the foregoing.” As such, Ross discloses a combination of authorization checks including both proximity and credentials. Stepwise verification of each element of the given combination is considered to be part of the teachings of Ross. Additionally, at least [0032]-[0033] of Ross discusses a combination of techniques to identity the “thing,” such as via its location. The Identification step 220 takes place before the access verification step 230 (e.g., FIG. 2-4 of Ross).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each of dependent claims 7 and 15 are drawn to further specifying a played animation, which is played on the VR appliance of their respective parent claim. However, the parent claim is already drawn to “comprising at least one animated element illustrating a potential consequence.” As such, the parent claim already specifies a VR appliance that is operable to play an animation.
Claim 7 further specifies the animation “comprising a depiction of a humanoid figure with a container moving away from the user.” This is not drawn to any device functionality or structure that is not already included in the parent claim. As such, claim 7 does not further narrow parent claim 1.
Dependent 15 is substantially similar to claim 7, and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons (it does not further narrow parent claim 9).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2020/0092092 A1) in view of Zimmermann (“Hybrid Password Meters for More Secure Passwords – A Comprehensive Study of Password Meters including Nudges and Password Information”), Ross (US 2019/0251722 A1), and the Monstera Production NPL (hereinafter “Monstera”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses: A virtual reality (VR) appliance (e.g., VT terminal in FIG. 4 and [0019]-[0020] of Zhao) for authenticating a user to a VR host computing system (e.g., VR server in FIG. 4 and [0023] of Zhao), the VR appliance comprising:
at least one processor (e.g., FIG. 5 of Zhao) programmed to perform operations comprising:
accessing credential data for the user;
Refer to at least 3.6-3.8 in FIG. 4, [0074], and [0106] of Zhao with respect to user password entry (e.g., FIG. 3 of Zhao) for the VR terminal.
authenticating (interpreted in view of [0016], [0021], [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0039], and [0049] of the instant specification, which states that the VR host is performing the authentication) the user to the VR host computing system using the credential data;
Refer to at least 108 in FIG. 1, 3.10 in FIG. 4, and [0108]-[0109] of Zhao with respect to the VR server authenticating the user based on the VR terminal providing the user password.
serving, to the user, a VR user interface; and
Refer to at least [0111]-[0112] of Zhao with respect to outputting a result of the authentication to the user over the VR terminal.
Zhao does not specify: accessing an indication that the credential data fails to meet a credential data standard; responsive to the indication that the credential data fails to meet the credential data standard, modifying the VR user interface to include a first user interface element and a second user interface element, the first user interface element describing a deficiency of the credential data, and the second user interface element comprising at least one animated element illustrating a potential consequence of a breach of the credential data for the user. However, Zhao in view of Zimmermann discloses: accessing an indication that the credential data fails to meet a credential data standard;
Refer to at least “PASSWORD METERS” on pages 7-8 of Zimmermann with respect to an implementation of a password meter for rating password strength as a user enters their password.
responsive to the indication that the credential data fails to meet the credential data standard, modifying the VR user interface (the display interface, which is the VR display interface in Zhao) to include a first user interface element and a second user interface element, the first user interface element describing a deficiency of the credential data, and the second user interface element comprising at least one animated element illustrating a potential consequence of a breach of the credential data for the user.
Refer to at least FIG. 7, FIG. 9, and page 9 of Zimmermann with respect to an example password meter having interface elements describing suggestions as a password is entered along with animated elements. For instance, “by using an image of an attacker aiming to crack the password (see Figure 9). Upon entering a weak password, the attacker is smiling and says that the password was easy to guess. With improved password strength, the attacker becomes increasingly frustrated and states that the password was very hard to guess. The word ‘password’ in the image is increasingly replaced with question-marks to highlight this fact. Similar to the other conditions, the color changes from red for weak progressing to yellow and then to green for strong passwords.”
The teachings of Zhao concern secure password entry over VR, while the teachings of Zimmermann relate to password meters for improving the security of user passwords. As such, these teachings are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhao to further implement the password meter of Zimmermann for at least the purpose of ensuring strong passwords are used (e.g., paragraph 2 on page 2 of Zimmermann).
Zhao-Zimmermann does not specify: determining that a location of the user is within a threshold distance of an augmented reality location associated with the VR host computing system; accessing credential data further responsive to the determining that the location of the user is within the threshold distance of the augmented reality location; the at least one animated element comprising alphanumeric characters indicating a financial account balance, the serving of at least one animated element comprising modifying the alphanumeric characters indicating the financial account balance to reduce the indicated financial account balance. However, Zhao-Zimmermann in view of Ross discloses: determining that a location of the user is within a threshold distance of an augmented reality location associated with the VR host computing system; accessing credential data further responsive to the determining that the location of the user is within the threshold distance of the augmented reality location;
Refer to at least [0029]-[0032] and [0035] of Ross with respect to determining a relative location of a “thing” in view of an augmented reality device. As per the cited portions, and further in view of [0010], [0025], and [0036] of Ross, user credentials may further be checked as part of the authentication including determining the relative location.
The teachings of Ross likewise concern user authentication and VR/AR devices. As such, they are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhao-Zimmermann to further implement context-aware authentication based on location for at least the purpose of increasing security by use of additional factors in multifactor authentication; further because things outside of visual range may not be relevant to a user of an AR/VR device (e.g., there is likely little need to display information for things the user cannot even see).
Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross does not disclose: the at least one animated element comprising alphanumeric characters indicating a financial account balance, the serving of at least one animated element comprising modifying the alphanumeric characters indicating the financial account balance to reduce the indicated financial account balance. However, Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross in view of Monstera discloses: the at least one animated element comprising alphanumeric characters indicating a financial account balance, the serving of at least one animated element comprising modifying the alphanumeric characters indicating the financial account balance to reduce the indicated financial account balance.
Refer to at least pages 1-2 of Monstera with respect to an animation of a financial account balance counter decreasing to indicate loss.
The teachings of Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross include multiple implementations of Nudge-based password meters having a particular animation (e.g., FIG. 9, FIG. 10, FIG. 15-16 of Zimmermann). As such, the teachings of Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross are considered to be combinable with other such animations to nudge a user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross to further implement the particular password meter nudge animation of financial account numbers decreasing ominously because the substitution of one known element for another (the particular animated metaphor used in a password meter to nudge a user—e.g., FIG. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 of Zimmermann have different examples of such animations) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (playing the particular animation to nudge the user into using a secure password).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross discloses: The VR appliance of claim 1, the operations further comprising: capturing image data depicting a portion of an environment around the user;
determining that the image data depicts an augmented reality location associated with the VR host computing system, the accessing of the credential data being responsive to the determining that the image data depicts an augmented reality location;
Refer to at least [0029]-[0033] of Ross with respect to recognizing things in view of a user of the AR device; FIG. 3 with respect to determining the user’s access rights responsive to the recognition.
and modifying the VR user interface to display an augmented interface element to the user, the augmented interface element being presented using an augmented reality display of the VR appliance, display an augmented interface element to the user while permitting an environment of the user to be viewed through the augmented reality display, the augmented interface element being positioned in the augmented reality display to at least partially overlap the augmented reality location.
Refer to at least [0038]-[0039] of Ross with respect to permitting the user to view virtual content associated with the recognized things, where the virtual content may be overlayed over the respective things.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross to further implement thing recognition and displaying virtual content overlayed in AR because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (e.g., shopping or touring locations using AR as in [0030] and [0048] of Ross).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross-Monstera discloses: The VR appliance of claim 1, the user having a plurality of accounts accessible to the VR host computing system, the plurality of accounts comprising a first account associated with the credential data and a second account associated with second credential data, the operations further comprising determining that a difference between the credential data and the second credential data is less than a threshold difference (e.g., whether the passwords are identical or not), the indication that the credential data fails to meet at least one credential data standard being based at least in part on the determining that a difference between the credential data and the second credential data is less than the threshold difference.
Refer to at least paragraph in the introduction, paragraph 7 on page 5, and table 1 of Zimmermann with respect to password meter techniques for detecting and indicating password reuse across accounts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhao-Zimmermann to further implement account reuse detection as part of the password meter for the purpose of improving security by helping to prevent a single compromised account from being a vector for further compromise of different accounts.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (e.g., the password meter in Zimmermann having textual suggestions).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross-Monstera discloses: The VR appliance of claim 1, the at least one animated element being depicted at the VR user interface in two dimensions,
Refer to at least FIG. 2-3 in Zhao with respect to the VR terminal displaying flat two-dimensional elements.
Refer to at least FIG. 9 of Zimmermann with respect to a flat two-dimensional password meter implementation.
and at least one other element being depicted at the VR user interface in three dimensions.
Refer to at least [0003] and [0032]-[0033] of Zhao with respect to the VR terminal being operable to display three-dimensional elements.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., implementing Zimmermann’s password meter).
Regarding independent claim 9, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 16, they are substantially similar to claims 4-5 and 8 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding independent claim 17, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, they are substantially similar to claim 3 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 4 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 21, Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross-Monstera discloses: the first user interface element comprising alphanumeric characters describing the deficiency of the credential data.
Refer to at least FIG. 7, FIG. 9, and page 9 of Zimmermann with respect to an example password meter having interface elements describing suggestions as a password is entered along with animated elements.
This cloud would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 23, it is substantially similar to claim 8 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross-Monstera as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20, and 23 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross-Monstera discloses: The VR appliance of claim 1, the at least one animated element comprising a depiction of a humanoid figure with a container;
Refer to at least FIG. 9 of Zimmermann with respect to a criminal holding a laptop.
Zhao-Zimmermann-Ross-Monstera does not specify: that the humanoid figure with the container is moving away from the user. However, the examiner hereby takes official notice that animations of criminals (e.g., masked robbers) running away with stolen goods (e.g., money bags) were well known in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention. For instance, searching stock footage repositories for criminals running away with bags will yield such animations. Since the claim is drawn to merely displaying a particular animation on a display device already configured for display, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another (the particular animated metaphor used in a password meter to nudge a user—e.g., FIG. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 of Zimmermann have different examples of such animations; FIG. 10 of Zimmermann contemplates a running analogy) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (playing the particular animation to nudge the user into using a secure password).
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 7 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 22, it is substantially similar to claim 7 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/V.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights