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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
2. This office action is in response to applicant's Arguments/ Remarks filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-17, 19-21 and newly added claims 22-27 are pending; and claims 3,9, and 18 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-17 and 19-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 23, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 23, 25 and 27 recite “….sensor data that is not positioning sensor data identifying longitude and latitude of the corresponding location.” (emphasis added). Applicant cited paragraphs 0038, 0039 and 0083 of the original specification as support to newly amended limitation of “….sensor data that is not positioning sensor data identifying longitude and latitude of the corresponding location.” However, There is no support of “….sensor data that is not positioning sensor data identifying longitude and latitude of the corresponding location.” from the original specification . Therefore, the written description requirement is not adequately met.
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 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-17 and 19-21 and - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2020/0389452 A1) in view of Han et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2014/0004828 A1) further in view of Royer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2004/0128502 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards et al discloses a computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more memory resources storing instructions (figure 3, authentication device 108; paragraphs 0031 and 0033) ; wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: obtain device data from a user device, the device data including a device identifier of the user device and multiple sets of sensor data of different types (paragraphs 0022 and 0043, “…Authentication device 108 may be configured to receive data or other communication from first or second user devices 102, 104. For example, authentication device 108 may be configured to receive log-in information and/or behavioral biometric data associated with a log-in attempt by user 101 on first user device 102 (or second user device 104), a device identifier associated with first user device 102 (or second user device 104), spatial sensor data from one or more spatial sensors 250 of first user device 102 (or second user device 104), and/or other data or information from first user device 102 (or second user device 104).”); based on the multiple sets of sensor data, determine (i) one or more location fingerprints (paragraph 0054 “…Authentication device 108 may be configured to monitor and analyze spatial sensor data from one or more user devices 102, 104 to detect emergent patterns in how a user 101 uses the user device 102, 104 while entering log-in information. That is, authentication device may be configured to receive sensor data from a user device 102, 104 and determine, based on the sensor data, a physical position or orientation of the user 101 while the user 101 entered the log-in information via the user device 102, 104.”), each location fingerprint including a vectorized data set that is based on the multiple sets of sensor data of different types a and uniquely identifying a corresponding location from where one or more of the multiple sets of sensor data was obtained, and (ii) a location-based behavior that is specific to a user of the user device and associated with at least one of the one or more location fingerprints (paragraphs 0036 and 0054-0055, “…Authentication device 108 may include a customer identification program 336 that is a rules-based program for monitoring and analyzing behavioral biometrics associated with a user according to one or more of the processes and functionalities described herein” and paragraph 0083, “…The system may, alternately or in addition, receive scenario data indicative of the time and location of the user's entry of the log-in information, as well as the device on which the log-in information was entered and sensor data indicative of a physical position or orientation of the user while the user entered the log-in information and/or a physical position or orientation of the user device while the user entered the log-in information.”); determine timing information for each of the one or more location fingerprints, wherein for each of the one or more location fingerprints, the timing information includes a time, frequency, and/or duration in which the user of the user device is located at the corresponding location (paragraphs 0058-0061); determine one or more relevant locations for the user device based on the one or more location fingerprints and the timing information (paragraphs 0060-0061); store the device identifier in association with the one or more location fingerprints or the location-based behavior of the user, and the one or more relevant locations (paragraphs 0043 and 0063); communicate with the user device to receive multiple sets of current or recent sensor data of different types from the user device (paragraph 0063); determine, based on the one or more current or recent sets of sensor data, at least one of (i) a current or recent location fingerprint including a corresponding vectorized data set that is based on the multiple sets of current or recent sensor data of different types and uniquely identifies a corresponding location from where the one or more current or recent sets of sensor data was obtained on the user device, and (ii) a current or recent location-based behavior of the user of the user device in association with the current or recent location fingerprint (paragraphs 55 and 0083, “…Authentication device 108 (or user device 102, 104) may be configured to determine the physical position of the user based on data from one or more spatial sensors 250.”); validate information about the user of the user device based on a comparison of (a) the at least one of the current or recent location fingerprint or the current or recent location-based behavior in association with the current or recent location fingerprint, and (b) the respective one or more location fingerprints or the location-based behavior that is specific to the user of the user device and associated with at least one of the one or more location fingerprints (paragraphs 0063- 0064); and generate an output that is based on the comparison (paragraphs 0062-0063), the output indicating a probability or degree to which the current or recent location fingerprint or location-based behavior data set matches the respective one or more location fingerprints or the location-based behavior that is specific to the user of the user device (paragraphs 0063-0065). Although Edwards et al does not explicitly discloses wherein validating information about the user includes determining that a current or recent location of the user is one of the one or more relevant locations, Edwards et al discloses “…various stored data may be included in or associated with a corresponding user model. If the determined likelihood for a given scenario (e.g., the likelihood that user 101 will user the corresponding user device 102, 104 to input log-in information at a given time while user 101 is in a given physical position or orientation and/or while the user device 102, 104 is in a given physical position or orientation) is a above a predetermined threshold, authentication device 108 may be configured to compare the received device identifier, received spatial sensor data, received behavioral biometric data, received or determined time data, and/or received GLS data to a stored device identifier, stored spatial sensor data, stored behavioral biometric data, stored time data, and/or stored GLS data.”).
Since Edwards et al teaches authentication device 108 may be configured to compare the received device identifier,received spatial sensor data, received behavioral biometric data, received or determined time data, and/or received GLS data to a stored device identifier, stored spatial sensor data, stored behavioral biometric data, stored time data, and/or stored GLS data.”), it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the validating information about the user determining that a current or recent location of the user is one of the one or more relevant locations in order to provide increased accuracy for determining a location of a device as taught by Edwards et al (paragraph 0047).
Edwards et al silent to location fingerprint including a vectorized data set and each location fingerprint uniquely identifying a corresponding location.
Han et al discloses a location fingerprint uniquely identifying a corresponding location from a sensor data (paragraphs 0034, 0049 and 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Han et al in to the system of Edwards et al, such that each location fingerprint uniquely identifying a corresponding location from where one or more of the multiple sets of sensor data was obtained in order to provide accuracy for determining a location of a device.
Edwards et al in view of Han et al does not disclose location fingerprint including a vectorized data.
Royer discloses location fingerprint including a vectorized data (paragraph 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Royer in to the system of Edwards et al in view of Han et al, such that location fingerprint could be included a vectorized data in order to enhance data processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the output includes a risk score (paragraphs 0019, 0020 and 0063).
Regarding claim 4, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to authenticate the user based on the comparison (paragraph 0063, “….authentication device 108 may be configured to compare the received device identifier, received spatial sensor data, received behavioral biometric data, received or determined time data, and/or received GLS data to a stored device identifier, stored spatial sensor data, stored behavioral biometric data, stored time data, and/or stored GLS data.”).
Regarding claim 5, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: receive a request from a requester (paragraphs 0056 and 0059); associate a user identifier specified in the request with the device identifier(paragraph 0059) ; and wherein the one or more processors communicate with the user device to receive the at least one of the current or recent location fingerprint or the current or recent location-based behavior in response to the request (paragraphs 0056 and 0058).
Regarding claim 7, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein each of the one or more current or recent sets of sensor data includes a time stamp as to when the respective sensor data was sampled on the user device (paragraph 0060); and wherein the comparison is further based at least in part on a time when the user was most recently located at a given location, the time being based on the time stamp as to when recent sensor data of the given location was sampled on the user device (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 8, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: detect an event in which information associated with a user identifier is to be validated; associate the user identifier with the device identifier (paragraph 0043); and wherein validating the information about the user includes determining, based on the comparison, a distance or duration of travel (paragraphs 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 10, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: receive a query from a requester, the query identifying an address and a user identifier; associate the user identifier with the device identifier; and wherein validating information about the user includes determining whether the address is for the relevant location (paragraphs 0058-0060).
Regarding claim 11, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: obtain timing information for each of the one or more location fingerprints, wherein for each of the one or more location fingerprints, the timing information includes a time, frequency, and/or duration in which the user of the user device is located at the corresponding location(paragraphs 0060-0062); determine one or more trusted locations for the user device based on the one or more location fingerprints and the timing information; store the device identifier in association with the one or more trusted locations (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 12, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 11. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: determine a trusted behavior for the user of the user device (paragraph 0046, “…Authentication device 108 may be configured to compare the received behavioral biometric data to saved behavioral biometric data of a first user model to determine a degree of similarity of the detected behavioral biometric data with respect to the saved behavioral biometric data.”), the trusted behavior being stored in association with a location fingerprint of the one or more trusted locations, the trusted behavior being based at least in part on sensor data sampled when the user device is at the trusted location (paragraphs 0054-0055, “Authentication device 108 may be configured to monitor and analyze spatial sensor data from one or more user devices 102, 104 to detect emergent patterns in how a user 101 uses the user device 102, 104 while entering log-in information. That is, authentication device may be configured to receive sensor data from a user device 102, 104 and determine, based on the sensor data, a physical position or orientation of the user 101 while the user 101 entered the log-in information via the user device 102, 104.”).
Regarding claim 13, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Edwards et al discloses, wherein the corresponding timing parameter of each trusted location indicates a duration and/or time of day (paragraphs 0058-0060).
Regarding claim 14, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 12. Edwards et al discloses, wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to: determine a corresponding timing parameter associated with the current or recent location fingerprint indicating when the current or recent location fingerprint was sampled on the user device (paragraphs 0059-0060); and wherein validating information about the user includes comparing (i) the corresponding location of the current or recent location fingerprint, and the corresponding timing parameter, with (ii) one or more of the trusted locations of the trusted behavior(paragraphs 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 15, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al discloses wherein the output includes a score that indicates that the user of the user device, at a time when data for the one or more current or recent sets of sensor data is sampled on the user device, is the user associated with the device identifier of the user device (paragraphs 0054, 0058 and 0060).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is similar in scope to the claim 1 and thus the rejection to claim 1 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, and as applied to the claim 16 above, claim 17 is similar in scope to the claim 2 and thus the rejection to claim 2 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, and as applied to the claim 16 above, claim 19 is similar in scope to the claim 4 and thus the rejection to claim 4 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is similar in scope to the claim 1 except in “method” form and thus the rejection to claim 1 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 16. Edwards et al discloses wherein the operations include: receiving a query from a requester, the query identifying an address and a user identifier; associating the user identifier with the device identifier(paragraph 0043, “…Authentication device 108 may be configured to compare the received device identifier with one or more stored device identifiers to identify a user model associated with the stored device identifier.”); and wherein validating information about the user includes determining whether the address is for the relevant location. (paragraph 0054).
6. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2020/0389452 A1) in view of Han et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2014/0004828 A1) further in view of Royer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2004/0128502 A1) further in view of Shuman et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2018/0352376 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Edwards et al discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the stored instructions to determine whether the user is located at one of the authorized locations based on the comparison (paragraph 0054, “…authentication device may be configured to receive sensor data from a user device 102, 104 and determine, based on the sensor data, a physical position or orientation of the user 101 while the user 101 entered the log-in information via the user device 102, 104.”).
Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer does not disclose wherein the corresponding location identified by at least one of the one or more location fingerprints is labeled as an authorized location for the user of the user device.
Shuman et al discloses wherein the corresponding location identified by at least one of the one or more location fingerprints is labeled as an authorized location for the user of the user device (paragraphs 0046-0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shuman et al in to the system of Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer, in order to provide improved accuracy for determining a location of a device as taught by Shuman et al (paragraph 0058).
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2020/0389452 A1) in view of Han et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2014/0004828 A1) further in view of Royer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2004/0128502 A1) further in view of Ross et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2018/0141564 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer does not disclose wherein obtaining device data includes using data gathering logic that optimizes the use of sensors and resources of the user device.
Ross et al discloses data gathering logic obtain data from sensor (paragraph 0061, “…data gathering logic 260 can also receive the sensor data”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ross et al in to the system of Edwards et al in view of Han et al and Royer, such that the data gathering logic could be obtained data from sensor in order to enhance the performance of the device as taught by Ross et al (paragraphs 0061-0062).
Regarding claim 24, and as applied to the claim 16 above, claim 24 is similar in scope to the claim 22 and thus the rejection to claim 22 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 24.
Regarding claim 26, and as applied to the claim 20 above, claim 26 is similar in scope to the claim 22 and thus the rejection to claim 22 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATUMA G SHERIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7189. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, PAN YUWEN can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/FATUMA G SHERIF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/YUWEN PAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights