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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 27 posted on 03/05/2025 are presently pending in the application and have been examined below, of which claims 1, 10 and 19 are presented in independent form.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/05/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 8, 10 – 14, 16 – 17, 19 – 23 and 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas Virgen et al. (US 12596782) (hereafter LV) and in view of Caton et al. (US 20150302421) (hereafter Caton).
As per claim 1 LV discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting a request to access a website, wherein the website is implemented on one or more web servers (LV, in col. 13, ll.64-67, col. 14, ll.14-17 disclosed communication via wide area network, WAN, i.e., internet, using website browsing software located on an access controlling server);
dynamically generating a virtual hologram corresponding to the website, wherein the virtual hologram is dynamically generated according to a virtual hologram seed associated with the website and one or more parameters associated with the website; providing the virtual hologram (LV, in col.1, ll.11-13, col. 2, ll. 14-18 discloses computer generation of a hologram, i.e., generation of virtual hologram, by implementation of lasers; the generated holograms are used for authentication by using respective input parameters, i.e., specified seeds),
wherein the virtual hologram is provided in real-time with the website (LV, in col. 1, ll.27-29 disclosed generation of holograms in real-time corresponding to a respective web, col. 13, ll. 65-66), and wherein when the virtual hologram is processed by an authentication device, the authentication device verifies that the website has been authenticated; detecting a change to the one or more parameters associated with the website (LV, in col. 2, ll.4-8 discloses continuous authentication of a communication using creation of security images, i.e., processing holograms in real time); and dynamically updating the virtual hologram (LV, in col. 2, ll.51-52 discloses that holograms are periodically regenerated, i.e., updated)) corresponding to the website, wherein the virtual hologram is dynamically updated according to the virtual hologram seed and the change to the one or more parameters LV, in col. 1, ll.27-29 disclosed generation of holograms in real-time, i.e., updating the hologram, corresponding to a respective web seeds, col. 13, ll. 65-66, Fig. 3A, 3C).
LV does not explicitly disclose: website authentication using website related security images, e.g., holograms and/or QR code. However, Caton discloses:
authenticating the website, wherein the website is authenticated based on a set of assets corresponding to the website (Caton, in para. [0008] discloses website authentication using security images, i.e., assets, to create holograms, see pare. [0259]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LV in view of teaching of Caton because they both disclose authentication of a communication via Internet using security images. The motivation to combine would be to modify LV by teaching of Caton of usage of the security images, to create holograms, for website authentication to improve security in the communication system.
As per claim 2 LV as modified discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein providing the virtual hologram further comprises: obtaining the set of assets, wherein the set of assets is used to implement the website; and encoding the set of assets and the virtual hologram according to a data format to generate a data stream (Caton, in para. [0007-0009], Fig. 21 discloses authentication processes including encoding and decoding of graphical information, security images, session identifiers, tokens, etc., i.e., website assets), wherein when the data stream is received, the data stream is decoded to generate a graphical facsimile of the website and the virtual hologram (Caton, in para. [0236] discloses processing of a graphical facsimile within the authentication process).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LV in view of teaching of Caton because they both disclose authentication of a communication via Internet using security images. The motivation to combine would be to modify LV by teaching of Caton of usage of encoding-decoding of graphical information within the authentication to improve security in the communication system.
As per claim 3 LV as modified discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual hologram is a Quick Response code (Caton, in para. [0259] discloses creation of Quick Response code as a holographic image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LV in view of teaching of Caton because they both disclose authentication of a communication via Internet using security images. The motivation to combine would be to modify LV by teaching of Caton of usage of the Quick Response code within website authentication to improve security in the communication system.
As per claim 4 LV as modified discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual hologram encodes a set of signal instructions that, when executed, cause a computing device to transmit a unique wireless signal, and wherein the unique wireless signal is configured according to the virtual hologram seed and the one or more parameters (LV, in col. 1, ii. 35-37 discloses usage of first and second seeds representing respective parameters).
As per claim 5 LV as modified discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters include a timestamp corresponding to a time when the request was detected (Caton, in para. [0122] discloses data processing tracking by using timestamps).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LV in view of teaching of Caton because they both disclose authentication of a communication via Internet using security images. The motivation to combine would be to modify LV by teaching of Caton of usage of timestamps within website authentication to improve security in the communication system.
As per claim 7 LV as modified discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a set of executable instructions that, as a result of being executed, cause an option to inspect the virtual hologram on the website to become disabled (LV, in col. 6, ll. 58-64 and in Fig. 2B discloses hologram inspection procedure and in case the hologram in not authenticated, depending of the inspection results the interaction with the hologram could be terminated, col.7, ll.4-6).
As per claim 8 LV as modified discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the virtual hologram encodes a set of executable instructions that, when executed by the authentication device, cause the authentication device to request authentication information for authenticating a user of the authentication device; and the computer-implemented method further comprises dynamically generating a new virtual hologram corresponding to the authentication device, wherein the new virtual hologram is generated according to the authentication information (LV, in col.2, ll.30-39 discloses generation of a new hologram based on processing the respective seed value comprising new key phrase and followed by additional authentication).
As per claim 10, claim 10 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claims 11 – 14 and 16 – 17, claims 11 – 14 and 16 – 17 encompass same or similar scope as claims 2 – 5, 7 – 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 11 – 14 and 16 – 17 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2 – 5 and 7 – 8.
As per claim 19, claim 19 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claims 20 – 23 and 25 – 26, claims 20 – 23 and 25 – 26 encompass same or similar scope as claims 2 – 5, 7 – 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 20 – 23 and 25 – 26 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2 – 5 and 7 – 8.
Claims 6, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas Virgen et al. (US 12596782) (hereafter LV) and in view of Caton et al. (US 20150302421) (hereafter Caton), and in view of Leddy et al. (US 20240046252) (hereafter Leddy)
As per claim 6 LV as modified failed to specifically disclose: usage of inline frame, or iframe operations for web documents. However, Leddy discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual hologram is provided through an inline frame implemented on the website (Leddy, in para. [0040] discloses implementation of iframe operation, i.e., inline frame, for website modifications).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LV-Caton in view of teaching of Leddy because they all disclose authentication of a communication via Internet using security images. The motivation to combine would be to modify LV-Caton by teaching of usage of iframe operations, i.e., inline frame, for website documents design in communication systems.
As per claim 15, claim 15 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 6.
As per claim 24, claim 24 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 6. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 6.
Claims 9, 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas Virgen et al. (US 12596782) (hereafter LV) and in view of Caton et al. (US 20150302421) (hereafter Caton), and in view of Dolev et al. (US 20180241548) (hereafter Dolev).
As per claim 9 LV as modified failed to specifically disclose: usage of one-time password, OTP, for authentication within the holographic scheme. However, Dolev discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a one-time passcode associated with the virtual hologram and credential information associated with a user of the authentication device, wherein the one-time passcode is extracted from the virtual hologram; and allowing access to one or more elements associated with the website, wherein the access is allowed based on authentication of the one-time passcode and the credential information (Dolev, in para. [0076] discloses usage of OTP, i.e., a one-time password, within the authentication process using holographic scheme).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LV-Caton in view of teaching of Dolev because they all disclose authentication of a communication via Internet using security holographic schemes. The motivation to combine would be to modify LV-Caton by teaching of Dolev to implement the OTP within the holographic scheme to improve security in communication systems.
As per claim 18, claim 18 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 9.
As per claim 27, claim 27 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 9. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ganick US_20140280316, Lin US_20120300273, Rashkin US_20220156825, Fan US_20180375863, Li US_20140282881, Sagan US_20180270272, Avetisov US_20210258308, Constable US_20240146533, Nouaille US_20220400105, Sabin US_20130111208, Sanctis US_20250005127, Shemer US_20230237199, Anastas US_20220398601, Donenfeld US_20160259928, Geisler US_11556727, Schol US_10885413, Clark US_11915288, Harmon US_20160021117, Oberheide US_20180007046.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313)446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VLADIMIR I GAVRILENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights