REGWEZ, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2022

2021000213 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/410,648 01/19/2017 Ragy Farouk Eleish 122881-0005UT01 1769 27189 7590 01/07/2022 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 525 B STREET SUITE 2200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 EXAMINER GYORFI, THOMAS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2435 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/07/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTONotifications@procopio.com docketing@procopio.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAGY FAROUK ELEISH ____________ Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Regwez, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to registering and authenticating a user based on a visual access code. (Spec., Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for authenticating a user in system comprising a plurality of devices, each storing a plurality of media objects, comprising: in response to a first device of the plurality of devices detecting an attempt to access a media object stored thereon by a second device of the plurality of devices, presenting to a user of the second device via visual authentication interface (VAI), a plurality of images; receiving, from the user, a selection of a first image from the plurality of images; receiving, from the user, a selection of at least a first set of hotspots, wherein the first set of hotspots are associated with the user, from a plurality of hotspots included in the first image; generating, via a processing device, a visual access code based on on [sic] an index number associated with the first image and a set of attributes associated with the first set of hotspots; encoding and storing the visual access code in order to authenticate the user in the future. (Appeal Br. 14, Claims App.) Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 3 REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ngo (US 2014/0047527 A1, pub. Feb. 13, 2014) and Talamo (US 2012/0291108 A1, pub. Nov. 15, 2012). (Final Act. 3-7.) The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ngo, Talamo, and Rozenfeld (US 2016/0078218 A1, pub. Mar. 17, 2016). (Final Act. 7.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue:3 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ngo and Talamo taught or suggested the requirements of independent claims 1 and 11. (Appeal Br. 7-11.) ANALYSIS In rejecting independent claims 1 and 11, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ngo of preventing Internet access via an “automated interaction” (i.e., a robot) by requiring a human user to solve a visual puzzle as part of the access procedure. (Final Act. 3-5; Ngo, Abstr., ¶ 9.) For 2 A rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite was withdrawn. (Ans. 3.) 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 15, 2020) (herein, “Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 6, 2020) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 15, 2019) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Aug. 6, 2020) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 4 example, a baseball diamond is displayed with the image of a player, and the user is prompted to use the mouse cursor to run the player around the bases to solve the puzzle. (Final Act. 3-5, Fig. 5E, ¶¶ 59-60, 69-71.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Talamo of creating secure login credentials by having the user select a “universal secret” in the form of an ordered sequence from a randomly arranged display of letters, numbers, or images (e.g., logos of sports teams), which sequence is used to generate the user credentials. (Final Act. 4-5; Talamo, Abstr., Figs. 3A, 3B, ¶¶ 115, 128, 133.) Each time the user logs in, the display of letters, numbers, or images (as applicable) is displayed in a new random array, and the user must select a sequence matching the sequence of the originally created universal secret to be authenticated. (Final Act. 4-5; Talamo, Abstr., ¶¶ 121, 129, 134.) Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Ngo is in error because that reference is not directed to authenticating a user, and does not present a plurality of images previously selected by or associated with the user. (Appeal Br. 9.) In addition, argues Appellant, although the action of dragging the player image around the bases in the exemplary puzzle may be considered as traversing hotspots, the pattern is also not previously selected by or associated with the user, as required by the claims. (Appeal Br. 10.) In regard to Talamo, Appellant argues that the reference does not provide a selection of images, but rather only discloses selecting particular positions on an image (the positions of the letters, numbers, or sports logos, for example, making up the universal secret). (Appeal Br. 11.) Finally, Appellant argues that the combination of Ngo and Talamo is not motivated. (Appeal Br. 11.) Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 5 The Examiner responds that Ngo does authenticate the user in the sense of verifying that the user is human. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner also argues that Ngo displays a plurality of images - for example, in the baseball diamond example, the diamond itself is displayed, as is a separate image of a player that the user moves around the bases. (Ans. 4.) In response to Appellant’s argument that no images or hotspots in Ngo are selected by or associated with the user, the Examiner maintains that “there is no requirement in the claim that any image recited therein need be a registered image that had been previously selected by the user.” (Ans. 5.) The Examiner further responds that Talamo discloses an enrolment procedure that can include selection by the user of multiple images (such as sports team logos), which are associated with the user. (Ans. 6-7.) The Examiner concludes that the process of selecting the sequence of displayed images in Talamo satisfies both the claim requirement of selecting an image, and selecting hotspots within the image. (Ans. 7.) Finally, the Examiner further articulates the grounds for combining the references. (Ans. 7-8.) In reply, Appellant argues that the baseball diamond image and player image of Ngo cannot reasonably be construed as the “plurality of images” recited in the claims, and that Examiner is wrong in construing the claims as not requiring that the images and hotspots be previously selected by the user. (Reply Br. 2.) Moreover, argues Appellant, to the extent that the movement of the player to successive bases can be considered selecting hotspots, in no sense is that selection associated with the user, but rather is a predefined selection that applies to all users. (Reply Br. 2.) With respect to Talamo, Appellant argues that the generated credentials are not generated by a combination of selecting an image and then selecting hotspots in the image. Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 6 (Reply Br. 3.) Appellant disputes the Examiner’s construction which would allow the selection of an image and the selection of hotspots to be performed by a single selection. (Reply Br. 3.) We agree with Appellant. The baseball diamond puzzle of Ngo requires predefined movements that are not associated with the user as required by the claims. Moreover, the claims do require the selection of an image and the selection of hotspots within the image to be previously performed by the user to create a credential “in order to authenticate the user in the future.” (Spec., claim 1.) The selection process of Talamo at most can be viewed as authenticating a user by selecting hotspots previously associated with the user. Thus, even combining the references, there is no teaching or suggestion of selecting an image from a plurality of images, where the selected image has been previously associated with the user, as required by the claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 11 over Ngo and Talamo. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20 over Ngo and Talamo, and of claims 3 and 13 over Ngo, Talamo, and Rozenfeld, which claims depend from claims 1 or 11. (Appeal Br. 11-12.) Appeal 2021-000213 Application 15/410,648 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-12, 14-20 102(a)(1) Ngo, Talamo 1, 2, 4-12, 14-20 3, 13 103 Ngo, Talamo, Rozenfeld 3, 13 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED