DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 1/30/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 2, 6, 9, and 15 are canceled. Claims 1, 14, and 17 are amended. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments/Comments
103 Rejection
Applicant’s argument is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejection due to amended claims.
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 of this title, 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, 5-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over in view of Dumas et al. (US20210398134A1) in view of Cincelli (US20230259928A1), and further in view of Griffin et al. (US11436597B1).
With respect to claim 1
Dumas teaches the limitation:
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising ([0014-0015].):
receiving a set of biometric identifiers comprising voice data ([0013], acquiring biometric information from a user using the biometric sensor; see also [0034], Biometric authentication refers to the identification and authentication means realized by the use of biological characteristics of the human body of the user or owner of the hardware. These biological characteristics of the human body include fingerprints, voice or sounds, faces, skeletons, retinas, irises, and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), as well as individual behavioral characteristics such as signature movements, walking gait, and strength of hitting keys on a keyboard.);
in response to receiving the set of biometric identifiers, validating the set of biometric identifiers ([0087]);
in response to validating the biometric identifiers……, ([0087]);
generating/modulating, using a synthesizer…. (fig.2 and [0052], element 218 in fig.2 is the synthesizer)
Dumas does not explicitly disclose, but Cincelli teaches:
generating, ([0261], In one embodiment, the voice of the subject 7 is recorded during the acquisition step of the voice signature, and possibly the storage of the geographical position of the electronic device 8 of the subject 7 and/or date/time; [0304] further describes voice signature being in frequency domain.)
modulating, ([0354-0359], at the instant t143, the smartphone 8 transmits towards the operative server device 105 an audio message carrying the digital audio track representative of the voice of the subject 7, together with the user identifier;
at the instant t145, the operative server device 105 receives the audio message carrying the sample digital audio track and the user identifier associated with the subject 7, then the operative server device 105 generates (by means of the processing unit thereof) a digital fingerprint (message digest) of the user identifier based on a defined hash algorithm, thereby generating a string of alphanumeric characters (i.e., an alphanumeric code), then an encryption of the generated alphanumeric code is performed using a private key so as to generate a new alphanumeric code representing the digital signature of the user identifier; [0304] further describes voice signature being in frequency domain.), the digital key being associated with the biometric identifier ([0353], Furthermore, a user identifier uniquely associated with the subject 7 is stored in the smartphone 8, wherein said user identifier represents a unique signed key used to sign and encrypt the messages exchanged between the smartphone…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas with the teaching of Cincelli as they relate to authentication based on bio-characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas to include a method of voice signature as multi-factor signature as taught in Cincelli for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Dumas in view of Cincelli do not explicitly disclose, but Griffin teaches:
causing a block-chain transaction to be executed using the multi-factor signature (see col.12 ln37-ln47, Utilizing the BBE-Sig processing system 102, a BBE-Sig token may be wrapped in some executable code as part of a smart agreement and stored in a distributed ledger, blockchain, or similar storage location. Alternatively, a signing party 12 may provide their biometric sample attached to an agreement along with an ACCEPT indicator, with the BBE-Sig token is not generated until the agreement conditions are met. These components are wrapped in some executable code and stored in a distributed ledger, blockchain, or similar storage location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/ Cincelli with the teaching of Griffin as they relate to authentication based on bio-characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/ Cincelli, for example using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include a method of executing multi-factor signature on a blockchain as taught in Griffin for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
With respect to claim 5
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. Dumas further teaches: wherein the biometric identifier is a second biometric identifier, and wherein the operation further comprise during setup of the system storing a first set of biometric identifier in association with a digital key or digital wallet corresponding to a user (col.2 ln21-ln31, A biometric reference template is a digital reference of an individual's distinct characteristics obtained by processing one or more biometric samples from the individual. Biometric traits may include, for example, biological (e.g., fingerprint, iris, hand geometry, etc.) and behavioral (e.g., gait, gesture, keystroke dynamics, etc.) characteristics that reliably distinguish one person from another. Digital representations of these characteristics are stored in an electronic medium as a reference template, and later used to authenticate the identity of an individual who provides a subsequent biometric sample.), and wherein the validating comprises comparing the first biometric identifier to the second biometric identifier (see col.7 ln41-ln44, Identification is the process of comparing a submitted biometric sample against some or all enrolled reference templates to determine an individual's identity.)
With respect to claim 7
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. Griffin further teaches: wherein the operations further cause utilizing the multi-factor signature to facilitate logging into a device (col.15 ln34-ln50, In some arrangements, the attribute of the digital signature message may be cryptographically bound to a hash of the biometric sample. In some embodiments, the decrypted biometric sample may include a biometric access phrase in addition to the secret knowledge factor. For example, the signing party can provide a biometric access phrase of “I use my voice to log on now brown cow” which provides a biometric sample that includes a biometric access phrase (“I use my voice to log on”) and a secret knowledge factor (“now brown cow”). The authentication circuit 128 may be structured to parse the biometric access phrase and the secret knowledge factor. In some embodiments, authentication by the authentication circuit 128 is triggered when the biometric access phrase is detected or the BESAKE token is decrypted. An example method 300 of verifying a BESAKE token is discussed below in FIG. 3.)
With respect to claim 8
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. Griffin further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise retrieving and presenting the digital key to a user validated by the device utilizing the biometric identifiers associated with multifactor signature (col.7 ln32-ln45, BESAKE utilizes a combined biometrics password through a version of the AKE protocol to provide a stronger, faster alternative to TLS. According to various embodiments, BESAKE may be used to authenticate a signing party (e.g. an account holder at a financial institution) to facilitate secure, encrypted transactions with the financial institution. As will be appreciated, a signing party can provide a multi-factor authentication BESAKE token, containing a signing party biometric sample and a record, seamlessly and quickly over a network instead of the current process of providing a physical signature on a record in tandem with an identity vetting process (e.g., in front of a notary with a state issued license.)
With respect to claim 14
Dumas teaches the limitation:
Receiving and storing a biometric identifier associated with an authorized user of a digital wallet, wherein the biometric identifier comprises a voice indicia ([0013], acquiring biometric information from a user using the biometric sensor; see also [0034], Biometric authentication refers to the identification and authentication means realized by the use of biological characteristics of the human body of the user or owner of the hardware. These biological characteristics of the human body include fingerprints, voice or sounds, faces, skeletons, retinas, irises, and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), as well as individual behavioral characteristics such as signature movements, walking gait, and strength of hitting keys on a keyboard.);
authenticating the biometric identifier (see [0087]);
….., using a synthesizer within the digital wallet, … (fig.2 and [0052], element 218 in fig.2 is the synthesizer)
Dumas does not explicitly disclose, but Cincelli teaches:
generating, ([0261], In one embodiment, the voice of the subject 7 is recorded during the acquisition step of the voice signature, and possibly the storage of the geographical position of the electronic device 8 of the subject 7 and/or date/time; [0304] further describes voice signature being in frequency domain.)
modulate, ([0354-0359], at the instant t143, the smartphone 8 transmits towards the operative server device 105 an audio message carrying the digital audio track representative of the voice of the subject 7, together with the user identifier;
at the instant t145, the operative server device 105 receives the audio message carrying the sample digital audio track and the user identifier associated with the subject 7, then the operative server device 105 generates (by means of the processing unit thereof) a digital fingerprint (message digest) of the user identifier based on a defined hash algorithm, thereby generating a string of alphanumeric characters (i.e., an alphanumeric code), then an encryption of the generated alphanumeric code is performed using a private key so as to generate a new alphanumeric code representing the digital signature of the user identifier; [0304] further describes voice signature being in frequency domain.), the digital key being associated with the biometric identifier ([0353], Furthermore, a user identifier uniquely associated with the subject 7 is stored in the smartphone 8, wherein said user identifier represents a unique signed key used to sign and encrypt the messages exchanged between the smartphone…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas with the teaching of Cincelli as they relate to authentication based on bio-characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas to include a method of voice signature as multi-factor signature as taught in Cincelli for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Dumas in view of Cincelli do not explicitly disclose, but Griffin teaches:
executing, (see col.12 ln37-ln47, Utilizing the BBE-Sig processing system 102, a BBE-Sig token may be wrapped in some executable code as part of a smart agreement and stored in a distributed ledger, blockchain, or similar storage location. Alternatively, a signing party 12 may provide their biometric sample attached to an agreement along with an ACCEPT indicator, with the BBE-Sig token is not generated until the agreement conditions are met. These components are wrapped in some executable code and stored in a distributed ledger, blockchain, or similar storage location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli with the teaching of Griffin as they relate to authentication based on bio-characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli, for example using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include a method of executing multi-factor signature on a blockchain as taught in Griffin for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over in view of Dumas et al. (US20210398134A1) in view of Cincelli (US20230259928A1) in view of Griffin et al. (US10469487B1), and further in view of Vijayan (US20200005284A1).
With respect to claim 10
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Vijayan teaches: wherein the operations further comprise minting a non-fungible token (NFT) incorporating the multi-factor signature ([0023], minting NFTs to the at least one immutable ledger and recording the minted NFT in the NFT registry, where minted NFTs are cryptographically co-signed by the NFT registry service and an authenticated content creator.), wherein the minting comprises utilizing an application to initialize a digital wallet comprising a digital item incorporating the multi-factor signature([0069], In several embodiments, users can download and install media wallet applications to store NFTs on the same computing devices that they are using to consume streamed and/or downloaded content. The media wallet applications can gather data concerning media consumption on the computer devices on which the media wallet applications are installed and/or based upon observations indicative of media consumption independently of the device (e.g. observations of audio indicative of a particular piece of content, or observations of user location corresponding to the location of a movie theater). In several embodiments, the media wallet applications can cause the media consumption data to be written to a permissioned analytics blockchain.), and utilizing the application to create an NFT of the digital item incorporating the multi-factor signature ([0073], The content engagement platform 100 utilizes one or more immutable ledgers 102 (e.g. one or more blockchains) to enable a number of verified content owners 104 to access an NFT registry service to mint NFTs 106 in a variety of forms including (but not limited to) digital tickets, proof of media playback rights, digital collectibles, proof of ownership of tangible collectibles, and/or digital coupons.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Vijayan as they relate to managing digital asset on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include the system of minting NFT on a blockchain in Vijayan for the predicated result of an improved digital asset creation platform using biometrics information.
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Vijayan teaches: wherein the operations further comprise authenticating a user via the multi-factor signature to access a non-fungible token (NFT) (see [0084].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Vijayan as they relate to managing digital asset on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include the system of minting NFT on a blockchain in Vijayan for the predicated result of an improved digital asset creation platform using biometrics information.
With respect to claim 16
The combination of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 14. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Vijayan teaches: further comprising minting a non-fungible token incorporating the multi-factor signature ([0023], minting NFTs to the at least one immutable ledger and recording the minted NFT in the NFT registry, where minted NFTs are cryptographically co-signed by the NFT registry service and an authenticated content creator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Vijayan as they relate to managing digital asset on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include the system of minting NFT on a blockchain in Vijayan for the predicated result of an improved digital asset creation platform using biometrics information.
With respect to claim 17
Dumas teaches the limitation:
Receiving and storing a biometric-based message associated with an authorized user of a digital wallet (fig. 2 and [0052], An encrypted storage 209 is a non-volatile memory used for storing encrypted data such as bio-vector data. Processing unit 208 a stores encrypted data to, and reads encrypted data from encrypted storage 209. In other embodiments, encrypted storage 209 may be formed within processor 208; see also [0086-0087].);
authenticating the biometric message (see [0087]);
…., using a synthesizer within the digital wallet…. (fig.2 and [0052], element 218 in fig.2 is the synthesizer)
Dumas does not explicitly disclose, but Cincelli teaches:
generating, ([0261], In one embodiment, the voice of the subject 7 is recorded during the acquisition step of the voice signature, and possibly the storage of the geographical position of the electronic device 8 of the subject 7 and/or date/time; [0304] further describes voice signature being in frequency domain.)
modulating, ([0354-0359], at the instant t143, the smartphone 8 transmits towards the operative server device 105 an audio message carrying the digital audio track representative of the voice of the subject 7, together with the user identifier;
at the instant t145, the operative server device 105 receives the audio message carrying the sample digital audio track and the user identifier associated with the subject 7, then the operative server device 105 generates (by means of the processing unit thereof) a digital fingerprint (message digest) of the user identifier based on a defined hash algorithm, thereby generating a string of alphanumeric characters (i.e., an alphanumeric code), then an encryption of the generated alphanumeric code is performed using a private key so as to generate a new alphanumeric code representing the digital signature of the user identifier; [0304] further describes voice signature being in frequency domain.), the digital key being associated with the biometric identifier ([0353], Furthermore, a user identifier uniquely associated with the subject 7 is stored in the smartphone 8, wherein said user identifier represents a unique signed key used to sign and encrypt the messages exchanged between the smartphone…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas with the teaching of Cincelli as they relate to authentication based on bio-characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas to include a method of voice signature as multi-factor signature as taught in Cincelli for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Dumas in view of Cincelli do not explicitly disclose, but Griffin teaches:
…rendering the biometric message to an authorized user (see fig.2 and col.6 ln42-ln46, As a form of pre-authorization, the BBE-Sig token is placed into a smart contract (e.g., remote procedure call) that monitors the terms and performance of the agreement and the BBE-Sig token is provided to the relying party as acceptance transfer if the agreement is met.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli with the teaching of Griffin as they relate to authentication based on bio-characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli, for example using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include a method of rendering the biometric message to the user as taught in Griffin for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Dumas in view of Cincelli in view of Griffin do not explicitly disclose, but Vijayan teaches:
minting a non-fungible token (NFT) tethered with the multi-factor signature ([0023], minting NFTs to the at least one immutable ledger and recording the minted NFT in the NFT registry, where minted NFTs are cryptographically co-signed by the NFT registry service and an authenticated content creator.),
wherein the minting comprises utilizing an application to initialize a digital wallet comprising a digital item incorporating the multi-factor signature ([0069], In several embodiments, users can download and install media wallet applications to store NFTs on the same computing devices that they are using to consume streamed and/or downloaded content. The media wallet applications can gather data concerning media consumption on the computer devices on which the media wallet applications are installed and/or based upon observations indicative of media consumption independently of the device (e.g. observations of audio indicative of a particular piece of content, or observations of user location corresponding to the location of a movie theater). In several embodiments, the media wallet applications can cause the media consumption data to be written to a permissioned analytics blockchain.), and
utilizing the application to create the NFT of the digital item incorporating the multi-factor signature ([0073], The content engagement platform 100 utilizes one or more immutable ledgers 102 (e.g. one or more blockchains) to enable a number of verified content owners 104 to access an NFT registry service to mint NFTs 106 in a variety of forms including (but not limited to) digital tickets, proof of media playback rights, digital collectibles, proof of ownership of tangible collectibles, and/or digital coupons.), list the NFT on a blockchain ([0011], in addition, the processor is capable of being configured by the media wallet application to: securely store non-fungible tokens (NFTs), where each NFT is associated with a programmatically defined smart contract written to at least one immutable ledger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Vijayan as they relate to managing digital asset on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/ Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include the system of minting NFT on a blockchain in Vijayan for the predicated result of an improved digital asset creation platform using biometrics information.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over in view of Dumas et al. (US20210398134A1) in view Cincelli (US20230259928A1) in view of Griffin et al. (US10469487B1), and further in view of Miller et al. (US20210150469A1; hereinafter Miller).
With respect to claim 3
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Miller teaches: wherein the operations further comprise adding white noise to the multi-factor signature ([0029], authentication program 200 generates a random or algorithmically derived audio signature (e.g., white noise), which can be audible or inaudible (e.g., ultrasonic, infrasonic, etc.). Additionally, authentication program 200 uses digital signal processing (DSP) techniques to modify audio properties of a digital signal (e.g., audio message, audio signal, etc.) to generate a unique audio signature.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Miller as they relate to bio-authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of using synthesizer for encrypting biometrics identification in Dumas, to include the system of adding white noise to the multi-factor signature in Miller, for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Claims 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over in view of Dumas et al. (US20210398134A1) in view of Cincelli (US20230259928A1) in view of Griffin et al. (US10469487B1), and further in view of Kopf (US20210272125A1).
With respect to claim 4
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Kopf teaches: wherein the operations further comprise visually representing biometric aspects of the multi-factor signature ([0025], In some embodiments, the corresponding characteristic of the respective biometric sampling is a visual identifying characteristic of the respective biometric sampling.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Kopf as they relate to bio-authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of generating a biometric electronic signature authenticated key exchange (“BESAKE”) token as taught in Griffin, to include the system of point constellation of a bio-image in Kopf for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, and Griffin teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Kopf teaches: wherein the operations further comprise generating a point constellation of a bio-image as the biometric identifier ([0125], In some embodiments, for each electronic representation of a respective biometric sampling, the method 400 further includes identifying a corresponding characteristic of the respective biometric sampling based on a corresponding electronic representation of the respective biometric sampling. For instance, in some embodiments, the corresponding characteristic of the respective biometric sampling includes a plurality of minutiae of the respective biometric sampling, such as a constellation of reference points of a fingerprint of a registrant.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin with the teaching of Kopf as they relate to bio-authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin, for example the method of generating a biometric electronic signature authenticated key exchange (“BESAKE”) token as taught in Griffin, to include the system of point constellation of a bio-image in Kopf for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
With respect to claim 13
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, Griffin, and Kopf teaches the limitation of claim 12. Kopf further teaches: wherein the generated point constellation corresponds to an image of an ear, a fingerprint, a face, an eye, or a retina ([0125], In some embodiments, for each electronic representation of a respective biometric sampling, the method 400 further includes identifying a corresponding characteristic of the respective biometric sampling based on a corresponding electronic representation of the respective biometric sampling. For instance, in some embodiments, the corresponding characteristic of the respective biometric sampling includes a plurality of minutiae of the respective biometric sampling, such as a constellation of reference points of a fingerprint of a registrant.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over in view of Dumas et al. (US20210398134A1) in view of Cincelli (US20230259928A1) in view of Griffin et al. (US10469487B1) in view of Vijayan (US20200005284A1), and further in view of Kopf (US20210272125A1).
With respect to claim 18
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, Griffin, and Vijayan teaches the limitation of claim 17. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Kopf teaches: further comprising rendering the biometric message in audio or visual format ([0025], In some embodiments, the corresponding characteristic of the respective biometric sampling is a visual identifying characteristic of the respective biometric sampling.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin/ Vijayan with the teaching of Kopf as they relate to bio-authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin/ Vijayan, for example the method of generating a biometric electronic signature authenticated key exchange (“BESAKE”) token as taught in Griffin, to include the system of point constellation of a bio-image in Kopf for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over in view of Dumas et al. (US20210398134A1) in view of Cincelli (US20230259928A1) in view of Griffin et al. (US10469487B1) in view of Vijayan (US20200005284A1), and further in view of Keith (US20210297258A1).
With respect to claim 19
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, Griffin, and Vijayan teaches the limitation of claim 17. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Keith teaches: further comprising iteratively tethering multiple biometric messages respectively associated with a plurality of individuals to the NFT ([0185], In some embodiments, a token or a hash is generated using the trust score analytics. In some embodiments, the token is a Non-Fungible Token (NFT). The token is able to be a user's password, facial scan or other acquired data and/or used as a password or otherwise to gain access to a service (e.g., an online service such as Facebook or a bank account). In some embodiments, the NFT is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, referred to as a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and not interchangeable…... The token and/or the trust score are able to continuously evolve as more data is acquired about the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin/ Vijayan with the teaching of Keith as they relate to managing digital assets on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Dumas/Cincelli /Griffin/ Vijayan, for example the method of generating a biometric electronic signature authenticated key exchange (“BESAKE”) token as taught in Griffin, to include the method of iteratively tethering biometric messages to the NFT in Keith for the predicated result of an improved authentication protocol for multi-factor authentication/signature.
With respect to claim 20
The combination of Dumas, Cincelli, Griffin, Vijayan, and Keith teaches the limitation of claim 19. Keith further teaches: further comprising generating a second NFT comprising a tethered set of the multiple biometric messages ([0186], The authorization is able to be used as a password to access any system. For example, the password is able to be used to access the mobile device, web pages/social networking pages, secure devices, online services, and/or any other device/system/service that utilizes a password to gain access. In another example, a user navigates using a web browser to a web page which requires a password or other authentication to access the web page. Instead of providing a password which is able to be stolen or hacked, the user's mobile device authenticates the user based on the aggregated analytics described herein and provides an authentication certificate or other implementation to indicate to the web page that the user is who he says he is (e.g., the accurate user). As described above, a generated token is able to be used as a password to gain access to a service. For example, the user is able to provide the previously generated token to the service which verifies the user as the user. In another example, the service automatically analyzes the token and verifies the user based on the token.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 3/27/2026
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699