DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1 – 20 in application 17/571831.
Claims 1, 2, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 are in regards to the newly presented amended limitations. A new reference has been identified that teaches the newly presented amended limitations in combination with the previously cited references.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 11-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US2020/0151719), in view of Kramme (US12,026,716B1) and in further view of Huber Jr. (US20180107887A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20. Sarin teaches:
receiving a first access attempt to perform a secure transaction, wherein the secure transaction is related to an authentication card that has a physical exterior; [FIG. 4 illustrates a process for performing an age-based authentication of a card transaction […] the process may be performed by the card reader device and/or the risk analysis module. The process 400 begins by receiving (at step 405) a transaction request based on a payment card. For example, the card reader device may receive an input […] for initiating the transaction request. […] The card reader device may then activate the EMV interface and/or the magnetic strip interface for obtaining card data from a card. The cashier or the user (e.g., 140) of the card 150 may perform an action that enables the card reader device 110 to obtain (e.g., read) the card data from the card 150. For example, the cashier or the user 140 may swipe the card 150 through the magnetic strip interface 206. In another example, the cashier or the user 140 may insert the card 150 having an EMV chip into the EMV interface 204 (Paragraph 0032, Sarin)].
retrieving, based on the first access attempt, an authentication card profile related to the authentication card, wherein the authentication card profile describes a set of degradation characteristics, wherein a first degradation characteristic of the set of degradation characteristics describes a degradation of the physical exterior of the authentication card; [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). […] through the user's regular handling of the card, the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin). […] One or more images of a portion of the card is obtained while processing the card transaction. Physical characteristics of the card are determined based on analyzing the one or more images, and an estimated age of the card is derived based on the physical characteristics. An actual age of the card may be obtained from card data encoded on the card (Abstract, Sarin). The process 400 then obtains (at step 410) card data from the physical card. For example, as the card 150 is swiped through the magnetic strip interface 206, the magnetic strip reader of the magnetic strip interface 206 may read the card data from the magnetic strip of the card 150. In another example, after the card 150 is inserted into the EMV interface 204, the EMV chip reader of the EMV interface 204 may access the EMV chip of the card 150 to read the card data from the EMV chip. The card data obtained from the magnetic strip or the EMV chip of the card 150 may include data that can identify a funding source, including a card number (e.g., a credit card number, a debit card number, etc.), an expiration date, a CVV, a card holder's name, and other information. In some embodiments, the card data stored on the magnetic strip and/or the EMV chip of the card 150 may also include age data that may represent an age of the card 150. As such, the process 400 then extracts (at step 415) the age data from the card data (Paragraph 0033, Sarin)].
determining, based on the first access attempt, the set of degradation characteristics and predicted degradation characteristics, […] a validation status of the authentication card, [the risk analysis module 132 may obtain physical characteristics (e.g., deterioration characteristics) of a physical payment card associated with a transaction request from the card reader device 110, analyze the physical characteristics to determine a likelihood that the physical card used for the transaction request is a counterfeit card, and authorize or deny the transaction request based on the likelihood (Paragraph 0029, Sarin). an image analysis module 304 configured to analyze the images of the card 150 obtained from the card reader device 110 to determine physical characteristics (e.g., deterioration characteristics) of the card (Paragraph 0031, Sarin); usage derivation module 306 configured to derive an estimated age of the card 150 based on the physical characteristics (Paragraph 0031, Sarin); derives (at step 430) estimated usage data of the physical card based on the images and a usage profile associated with the user, and authenticates (at step 435) the transaction request based on a comparison between the estimated usage data and the age data … may generate a deterioration model for each of the cards (including the card 150) based on the extents and/or types of physical deterioration of the cards detected through the previous transactions (predicted degradation characteristics) (Paragraph 0036, Sarin)].
performing, in response to the validation status, a security response related to the first access attempt. [The service provider server 130 may also include a risk analysis module 132 that implements the functionalities of the risk analysis system as disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the risk analysis module 132 may obtain physical characteristics (e.g., deterioration characteristics) of a physical payment card associated with a transaction request from the card reader device 110, analyze the physical characteristics to determine a likelihood that the physical card used for the transaction request is a counterfeit card, and authorize or deny the transaction request based on the likelihood (Paragraph 0029, Sarin)].
Sarin not explicitly teach:
[…] generated by a machine learning model […]
Kramme teaches:
[…] generated by a machine learning model […] [The present embodiments may, inter alia, use new processing techniques to determine whether physical documents relating to a financial transaction (e.g., personal checks, identification cards, etc.) are fraudulent (e.g., counterfeit and/or forged) and/or should be flagged for further review (Column 1, lines 66 and 67; Column 2, lines 1-4). In a computer-implemented method of facilitating detection of document-related fraud, fraudulent document detection rules may be generated or updated by training a machine learning program using image data corresponding to physical documents, and fraud determinations corresponding to the documents. The documents and fraudulent document detection rules may correspond to a first type of document. Image data corresponding to an image of one of the physical documents may be received, where the physical document corresponds to the first type of document. By applying the fraudulent document detection rules to the image data, it may be determined that the physical document is, or may be, fraudulent. An indication of whether the physical document is, or may be, fraudulent may be displayed to one or more people via one or more respective computing device user interfaces (Abstract, Kramme)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an authentication card profile that describes a set of one or more degradation characteristics of Sarin with the machine learning program to detect image data of physical documents of Kramme because doing so allows the card to be verified for authenticity instead of being counterfeit.
The combination of Sarin and Kramme does not discloses:
wherein the predicted degradation characteristics […] include a size, placement, and scope of future degradations, and
[…] variations in card degradation of similar authentication cards and variations in card degradation of different authentication cards;
Huber Jr. discloses:
wherein the predicted degradation characteristics […] include a size, placement, and scope of future degradations, and [Each digital image of the group of sample images are scored by the image classifier 106. As noted above, the score indicates a likelihood that the digital image of the physical credential is tampered or untampered (Paragraph 0045, Huber Jr.). This layer includes the underlying identification document, with all the visible light security features, high value regions (biometrics, biographics, MRZs, etc.) as if it was perfectly imaged. "Layer One" (1004) represents the dirt and damage that can accumulate over time. This may include, for example, laminate quality, use, wear and tear, etc. This layer may also represent the laminate or outer surface of the credential itself, including reflectivity (e.g., degree of gloss or perforation) and damage (e.g., wear and tear, rubbing, cracking, color fade from sun exposure or dirt). This layer may also represent deliberate physical modification of the credential including cutting, perforation, or the affixing of stickers or other post manufacturing materials to the surface (e.g., change of address stickers, perforation by an agency due to expiration and replacement, and deliberate physical tampering to misrepresent data). In general, this layer corresponds to one or more physical aspects of the underlying document (Paragraph 0040, Huber Jr.) Similarly, different degrees of blurring and/or occlusions of different size, shape, and color may be used to derive multiple tampered images. Automatically generating several different types of tampered images is advantageous because it increases the size of the training dataset. This advantage is amplified when Convolutional Neural Network (CNNs) are used to facilitate the determination of whether an image corresponds to a tampered identification document, because these types of classifiers continue to improve with increasing training examples. Moreover, the automatically generated tampered images further diversify the training data by mimicking different levels of sophistication in tampering. For example, a rudimentary attempt at splicing may produce jagged edges, while a more sophisticated attempt may produce smooth edges (Paragraph 0057, Huber Jr.).
[…] variations in card degradation of similar authentication cards and variations in card degradation of different authentication cards; [a series of digital images representing the same physical credential… one or more benign pixel features including: environmental, capture device, credential wear, lighting effects, hardware/software quantization, and/or digital compression effects…the first set of untampered digital images includes a plurality of images representing different forms of personal identity credentials. (Paragraph 0015, Huber Jr.)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an authentication card profile that describes a set of one or more degradation characteristics of Sarin and the machine learning program to detect image data of physical documents of Kramme with the card surface defects and features of Huber Jr. because doing so provides richer degradation/defect feature inputs and more robust validation outcomes.
Regarding Claim 2. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above. The combination further teaches:
the authentication card includes a set of stored user data of a first user, and the retrieving the authentication card profile includes: retrieving, from a user data store and based on the set of stored user data, user credentials of the first user; and retrieving, based on the user credentials, the authentication card profile. [[…] Card data such as a card number (e.g., a credit card number, a debit card number, etc.), an expiration date, a card verification value (CVV), a card holder name may appear on the face of the physical card. Such data may also be stored in a magnetic strip and/or an EMV chip embedded in the card. When the payment card is used in a transaction, a device (e.g., a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, an ATM machine, etc.) may read the payment card data either from the magnetic strip (e.g., by swiping the card along a magnetic strip reader) or from the EMV chip (e.g., by inserting the card into the EMV chip reader). (Paragraph 0010, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 3. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 2. wherein the set of stored user data is embedded into an integrated circuit located inside the authentication card. [[…] Card data such as a card number (e.g., a credit card number, a debit card number, etc.), an expiration date, a card verification value (CVV), a card holder name may appear on the face of the physical card. Such data may also be stored in a magnetic strip and/or an EMV chip embedded in the card (Paragraph 0010, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 4. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 1. wherein the authentication card is selected from the group consisting of a smart card, a magnetic strip card, a payment system card, and an identification card. [In some embodiments, as the card is used to perform a transaction at a POS terminal, an ATM machine, or other device capable of reading data from the card (e.g., the card is being swiped through a magnetic card reader, the card inserted into an EMV chip reader, etc.), one or more images of a portion of the card is obtained. For example, an optical sensor (e.g., an image sensor) may be incorporated into the magnetic card reader and/or the EMV chip reader such that as the card is swiped through the magnetic card reader and/or inserted into the EMV chip reader, one or more images of a portion of the card (e.g., the portion of the card that makes contact with the magnetic strip reader, the portion of the card that is inside the EMV chip reader, etc.) may be captured by the optical sensor. Instead of or in addition to the image sensor, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner may be incorporated into the EMV chip reader such that as the card is inserted into the EMV chip reader, one or more MRI images of a portion of the card (e.g., the portion of the card that is inside the EMV chip reader, etc.) may be captured (Paragraph 0013, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 6. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the degradation of the physical exterior of the authentication card includes at least one scratch of a second physical surface of the authentication card. [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). For example, after a number of times of swiping the card through a magnetic strip reader, scratches may appear on the magnetic strip of the card. Similarly, after a number of times of inserting the card into and removing the card from an EMV chip reader, scratches may appear on the exterior portions (e.g., the contacts) of the EMV chip. Furthermore, through the user's regular handling of the card (e.g., storing in a wallet, inserting the card into a slot in the wallet, removing the card from the slot of the wallet, etc.), the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 7. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the physical exterior of the authentication card includes a set of one or more visual markings of a first physical surface of the authentication card. [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). For example, after a number of times of swiping the card through a magnetic strip reader, scratches may appear on the magnetic strip of the card. Similarly, after a number of times of inserting the card into and removing the card from an EMV chip reader, scratches may appear on the exterior portions (e.g., the contacts) of the EMV chip. Furthermore, through the user's regular handling of the card (e.g., storing in a wallet, inserting the card into a slot in the wallet, removing the card from the slot of the wallet, etc.), the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 8. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the degradation of the physical exterior includes fading of a first visual marking of the set of visual markings. [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). For example, after a number of times of swiping the card through a magnetic strip reader, scratches may appear on the magnetic strip of the card. Similarly, after a number of times of inserting the card into and removing the card from an EMV chip reader, scratches may appear on the exterior portions (e.g., the contacts) of the EMV chip. Furthermore, through the user's regular handling of the card (e.g., storing in a wallet, inserting the card into a slot in the wallet, removing the card from the slot of the wallet, etc.), the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the degradation of the physical exterior includes smudging of a first visual marking of the set of visual markings. [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). For example, after a number of times of swiping the card through a magnetic strip reader, scratches may appear on the magnetic strip of the card. Similarly, after a number of times of inserting the card into and removing the card from an EMV chip reader, scratches may appear on the exterior portions (e.g., the contacts) of the EMV chip. Furthermore, through the user's regular handling of the card (e.g., storing in a wallet, inserting the card into a slot in the wallet, removing the card from the slot of the wallet, etc.), the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 10 The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the degradation of the physical exterior includes a change in reflectivity of a first physical surface of the authentication card, wherein the change in reflectivity is from at least one degradation characteristic that is a change in glossiness of a coating of the authentication card. [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). For example, after a number of times of swiping the card through a magnetic strip reader, scratches may appear on the magnetic strip of the card. Similarly, after a number of times of inserting the card into and removing the card from an EMV chip reader, scratches may appear on the exterior portions (e.g., the contacts) of the EMV chip. Furthermore, through the user's regular handling of the card (e.g., storing in a wallet, inserting the card into a slot in the wallet, removing the card from the slot of the wallet, etc.), the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 11. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first access attempt includes a current exterior visualization that depicts one or more current degradation characteristics of the physical exterior of the authentication card at a time of the first access attempt. [Through usages over time, the card may exhibit signs of deterioration (e.g., wear and tear). For example, after a number of times of swiping the card through a magnetic strip reader, scratches may appear on the magnetic strip of the card. Similarly, after a number of times of inserting the card into and removing the card from an EMV chip reader, scratches may appear on the exterior portions (e.g., the contacts) of the EMV chip. Furthermore, through the user's regular handling of the card (e.g., storing in a wallet, inserting the card into a slot in the wallet, removing the card from the slot of the wallet, etc.), the card may also exhibit other signs of wear and tear (e.g., plastic seal ripping off, discoloration of an area of the card, wearing down of the signature panel, carbon aggregated on the contacts of the EMV chip, circuits of the EMV chip thinning or breaking, a change in dimension and/or shape of the card, etc.). The extent of the physical deterioration of the card may correspond to an age of the card (e.g., how long the card has been in use, how many times the card has been used in transactions) (Paragraph 0011, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 12. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 11: updating the authentication card profile with the one or more current degradation characteristics of the current exterior visualization of the authentication card. [The risk analysis system may then compare the estimated age of the card to an actual age of the card. The risk analysis system may deny the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by more a predetermined threshold, and may authorize the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by less than the predetermined threshold. When the card transaction is authorized, the risk analysis system may update the usage profile of the user (and/or the card) using the updated deterioration information determined from the images obtained while processing the transaction request (Paragraph 0017, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 13. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the determining the validation status includes comparing the current exterior visualization to the authentication card profile. [The risk analysis system may then compare the estimated age of the card to an actual age of the card. The risk analysis system may deny the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by more a predetermined threshold, and may authorize the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by less than the predetermined threshold. When the card transaction is authorized, the risk analysis system may update the usage profile of the user (and/or the card) using the updated deterioration information determined from the images obtained while processing the transaction request (Paragraph 0017, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 14. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the validation status is that the current exterior visualization deviates from the authentication card profile. [The risk analysis system may then compare the estimated age of the card to an actual age of the card. The risk analysis system may deny the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by more a predetermined threshold, and may authorize the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by less than the predetermined threshold. When the card transaction is authorized, the risk analysis system may update the usage profile of the user (and/or the card) using the updated deterioration information determined from the images obtained while processing the transaction request (Paragraph 0017, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 15. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the deviation is based on a predefined degradation threshold. [The risk analysis system may then compare the estimated age of the card to an actual age of the card. The risk analysis system may deny the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by more a predetermined threshold, and may authorize the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by less than the predetermined threshold. When the card transaction is authorized, the risk analysis system may update the usage profile of the user (and/or the card) using the updated deterioration information determined from the images obtained while processing the transaction request (Paragraph 0017, Sarin)].
Regarding Claim 16. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the security response includes denying the first access attempt. [The risk analysis system may then compare the estimated age of the card to an actual age of the card. The risk analysis system may deny the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by more a predetermined threshold, and may authorize the card transaction when it is determined that the estimated age of the card deviates from the actual age of the card by less than the predetermined threshold. When the card transaction is authorized, the risk analysis system may update the usage profile of the user (and/or the card) using the updated deterioration information determined from the images obtained while processing the transaction request (Paragraph 0017, Sarin)].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin, in view of Kramme, in view of Huber Jr. and in further view of Ross et al. (US20150117701) hereinafter Ross.
Regarding Claim 5. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination does not teach however Ross teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one degradation characteristic of the set of degradation characteristics is an ink bleeding on the authentication card. [Such indicia may include, for example, sharp, non-bleeding edges where a photograph has been replaced or torn paper fibers where an erasure occurred. These stored features from the counterfeit licenses can then be analyzed and stored as a reference set of fraudulent methods which can then be compared to new license fingerprints to detect a forged document (Paragraph 0013, Ross)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an authentication card profile that describes a set of one or more degradation characteristics of Sarin with the machine learning program of Kramme and the card defects of Huber Jr. with at least one degradation characteristic being based on ink bleeding on the card of Ross because doing so allows the card to be verified for authenticity instead of being counterfeit.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin, in view of Kramme, and in view of Huber Jr. and in further view of Card (US 2002/0073339A1).
Regarding Claim 17. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Huber Jr. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination does not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the security response includes requesting additional authentication factors from the first user.
However, Card teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the security response includes requesting additional authentication factors from the first user. [In one embodiment, biometric information, such as fingerprint recognition, is used as a security mechanism that limits access to the card 205 to authorized users. A fingerprint touch pad and associated logic 230 is therefore included in one embodiment to perform these functions. Alternately, security may be achieved using a smart card chip interface 250, which uses known smart card technology to perform the function. A suitable biometric control device that may be used is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/510,811, entitled “Method of Using a Personal Device with Internal Biometric Control in Conducting Transactions Over a Network,” which is herein incorporated by reference (Paragraph 0029, Card)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an authentication card profile that describes a set of one or more degradation characteristics of Sarin with the machine learning of Kramme and the card defects of Huber Jr. with the additional authentication factors of Card because doing so allows the card to be verified for authenticity instead of being counterfeit and verifies the actual user of the card.
Regarding Claim 18. The combination of Sarin, Kramme, and Card teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above. The combination further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the additional authentication factors include one or more biometric features of the first user. [In one embodiment, biometric information, such as fingerprint recognition, is used as a security mechanism that limits access to the card 205 to authorized users. A fingerprint touch pad and associated logic 230 is therefore included in one embodiment to perform these functions. Alternately, security may be achieved using a smart card chip interface 250, which uses known smart card technology to perform the function. A suitable biometric control device that may be used is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/510,811, entitled “Method of Using a Personal Device with Internal Biometric Control in Conducting Transactions Over a Network,” which is herein incorporated by reference (Paragraph 0029, Card)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an authentication card profile that describes a set of one or more degradation characteristics of Sarin with the machine learning of Kramme and the card defects of Huber Jr. with the additional authentication factors of Card because doing so allows the card to be verified for authenticity instead of being counterfeit and verifies the actual user of the card.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tuyles et al. (US20080149700A1) - The invention relates to a system comprising an information carrier 11 having an optical identifier 12, and an apparatus 10, wherein the apparatus prior to accessing the information carrier verifies if the optical behavior of the optical identifier is consistent with authentication information 17 present in the information carrier. The authentication is performed by challenging the optical identifier with a least one light beam 14, detecting a resulting speckle pattern 16 on a detector 15 as a corresponding response, and comparing it with the authentication information 17. Access to the information carrier can be made conditional to a successful authentication, in particular by encrypting user-information 20 present in the information carrier, and thereby providing a strong copy protection scheme. The invention can be applied for example to optical disks or smart cards. The invention further relates to the information carrier, the apparatus, a method for the authentication and a computer program.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINA C STEVENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Mcatee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7575. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/C.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights