CTFR 17/643,270 CTFR 85633 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, 18-21 and 24-26 are pending in this action. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 7-11, 14-16, 19-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US Patent No. 10,268,814) in view of Not Avail (JP-6672073-B2) [hereinafter “JP ‘073”] in further view of Raviv et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0189466) [hereinafter “Raviv”] in further view of Dutt et al. (US PGPUB No. 2016/0057623) [hereinafter “Dutt”] . As per claim 1, Barnes teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a device, swipe data associated with a swipe by a user of a user device, wherein the swipe data is received based on the swipe generating a user input that is indicative of a swipe input (Col. 12, lines 32-33, receiving tap/swipe inputs from user); processing, by the device and based on reference swipe data, the swipe data to determine whether the swipe is associated with an authorized user of the user device (Col. 11, lines 43-46, determining whether the input taps/swipes constitute an authorized tap/swipe pattern previously entered by the user), wherein the reference swipe data is associated with previous swipes performed by the authorized user (Col. 11, lines 43-46 and Col. 12, lines 34-39, entering and changing tap and swipe patterns that are authorized for the device); and performing, by the user device, an action associated with access to a user interface of the user device based on whether the swipe data is determined to be associated with the authorized user (Col. 12, lines 33-34, providing access to the data stored on the storage device if the tap/swipe inputs are an authorized pattern). Barnes does not explicitly teach wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe having a continuous touch path along a touchscreen of the user device, wherein the continuous touch path includes a start point, an end point, a length, and a linear displacement, wherein the length corresponds the continuous touch path, wherein the linear displacement corresponds to a straight line distance between the start point and the end point of the continuous touch path and is greater than a designated percentage of the length, and wherein the start point corresponds to a location of a first touch of the continuous touch path and the end point corresponds to a location of a last touch of the continuous touch path. JP ‘073 teaches wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe having a continuous touch path (Page 8, para. 3, measuring length along swipe path on touch panel see Page 2, para. 4), wherein the continuous touch path includes a start point, an end point, a length, and a linear displacement (Page 8, para. 3, start/end coordinates, length along path of swipe and length between start and end points), wherein the length corresponds to the continuous touch path along the touchscreen of the user device (Page 8, para. 3, length along path of swipe),wherein the linear displacement corresponds to a straight line distance between the start point and the end point of the continuous touch path (Page 8, para. 3, length between start/end points) and is greater than a designated percentage of the length (Page 8, para. 3, using length of path and length between start/end in a function to define a swipe), and wherein the start point corresponds to a location of a first touch of the continuous touch path and the end point corresponds to a location of a last touch of the continuous touch path (Page 8, para. 3, start/end points with coordinates of a swipe with a path on a touch panel). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barnes with the teachings of JP ‘073, wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe having a continuous touch path along a touchscreen of the user device, wherein the continuous touch path includes a start point, an end point, a length, and a linear displacement, wherein the length corresponds the continuous touch path, wherein the linear displacement corresponds to a straight line distance between the start point and the end point of the continuous touch path and is greater than a designated percentage of the length, and wherein the start point corresponds to a location of a first touch of the continuous touch path and the end point corresponds to a location of a last touch of the continuous touch path, to ensure that a proper swipe gesture is defined and sensed by a touch screen device with respect to a reference swipe and swipe length. The combination of Barnes and JP ‘073 does not explicitly teach permitting, by the user device and during a user session or application session, the user session or application session to continue based on whether the user input is indicative of the swipe. Raviv teaches permitting, by the user device and during a user session or application session, the user session or application session to continue based on whether the user input is indicative of the swipe ([0025], during operation authenticating current user to allow continued use of applications wherein the authentication includes verifying swipe of user see [0073]-[0074]). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barnes and JP ‘073 with the teachings of Raviv, permitting, by the user device and during a user session or application session, the user session or application session to continue based on whether the user input is indicative of the swipe, to ensure that the physical possession of a user device is continuously with an authorized user which improves overall security of private and sensitive data. The combination of Barnes, JP ‘073 and Raviv does not explicitly teach selecting a model from a plurality of models based on a condition associated with the user wherein the condition includes one or more of the user sitting with the user device, the user standing with the user device, the user walking with the user device, or the user running with the user device. Dutt teaches selecting a model from a plurality of models based on a condition associated with the user wherein the condition includes one or more of the user sitting with the user device ([0103], tracking contextual data for different situations for determining a swipe on a device including sitting down or running), the user standing with the user device (Examiner Note: this is an optional feature that may overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature), the user walking with the user device (Examiner Note: this is an optional feature that may overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature), or the user running with the user device ([0103], tracking contextual data for different situations for determining a swipe on a device including sitting down or running). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barnes, JP ‘073 and Raviv with the teachings of Dutt, selecting a model from a plurality of models based on a condition associated with the user wherein the condition includes one or more of the user sitting with the user device, the user standing with the user device, the user walking with the user device, or the user running with the user device, to ensure that the physical possession of a user device is continuously with an authorized user which improves overall security of private and sensitive data. As per claim 4, the combination of Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user input to the user device is associated with at least one of: an application of the user device, a home screen of the user device (Examiner Note: this is an optional feature) or a lock screen of the user device (Barnes; Col. 4, lines 30- 35, separate application including a locking/unlocking application to facilitate access control using swipes). As per claim 7, the combination of Barnes, Griffin, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on at least one of: a direction of the swipe that is based on the start point and the end point of the swipe (JP ‘073; Page 8, para. 3, including start/end point and direction along axis) (Examiner Note: the remaining limitations are interpreted as optional since only one of the list is required by the claim language – to expedite prosecution Examiner has provided potential citations), the length of the continuous touch path along the touchscreen of the user device (JP ‘073; Page 8, para. 3, travel distance along path), a ratio of the linear displacement between the start point and the end point and the length of the touch path (JP ‘073; Page 8, para. 3, travel distance and positional distance set as function values of a swipe signature), pressure data associated with one or more pressure values that are associated with pressure applied by the user along the continuous touch path (Examiner Note: this optional feature may be rejected with Haider), or a duration of time associated with the swipe (JP ‘073; Page 8, para. 3, swipe time). As per claim 8, the combination of Barnes, Griffin, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the previous swipes are associated with the authorized user interacting with the user device during a training period associated with identifying a user-specific swipe motion of the authorized user (Barnes; Col. 12, lines 29-34, authorized swipe pattern stored on device previously provided by user). As per claim 9, the combination of Barnes, Griffin, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving sensor data associated with the user interacting with the user device (Barnes; Col. 10, lines 35-40, receiving location, orientation, pressure data from the device when swipes are entered); identifying, based on the sensor data, a condition of the user interacting with the user device (Barnes; See id. , determining the location, orientation, pressure of the user interaction, i.e. condition); and selecting, from a plurality of sets of reference swipe data, the reference swipe data based on the reference swipe data being associated with the condition (Barnes; Col. 9, 61-67, multiple swipe patterns on file used in conjunction with location, orientation, pressure data to provide access to security device) see also (Barnes; Col. 14, lines 5-10, entered characters, i.e. setting a condition for a swipe pattern input, associated and determines which swipe pattern will be valid). As per claim 10, the combination of Barnes, Griffin, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 9, wherein touch characteristics of the user input are individually weighted based on the condition and values of corresponding touch characteristics that are identified in the reference swipe data (Barnes; Col. 9, lines 38-49, measuring the pressure for each tap/swipe in the set of taps/swipes in swipe pattern and including this as part of the authorization). As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 10. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 24, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 25, the combination of Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the model is a machine learning model, and wherein the model is trained based on reference swipe data that is associated with the user device being operated in the condition (Dutt; [0048] and [0085], using a confidence value based on previous touch images to determine if input patch is a swipe). As per claim 26, the combination of Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt teaches method of claim 1, wherein the condition further includes one or more of the user device running a particular application (Barnes; Col 4, lines 29-35, separate application handling access security running along-side other particular applications) or the user device having a particular lock status (Barnes; Col. 4, lines 30-35, separate application including a locking/unlocking application to facilitate access control using swipes) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 5, 6, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt in further view of Haider (US Patent No. 11,010,050) [hereinafter “Haider”] . As per claim 3, the combination of Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the start point and the end point is less than or equal to a threshold percentage of a maximum dimension of the touchscreen of the user device. Haider teaches wherein the distance between the start point and the end point is less than or equal to a threshold percentage of a maximum dimension of the touchscreen of the user device (Col. 11, line 63-66, the start-end distance of the swipe is a designated threshold/percentage of the touch path across the display screen). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt with the teachings of Haider, wherein the distance between the start point and the end point is less than or equal to a threshold percentage of a maximum dimension of the touchscreen of the user device, to ensure that the physical possession of a user device is continuously with an authorized user which improves overall security of private and sensitive data. As per claim 5, the combination of Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe consisting essentially of a single curve (Barnes; Col. 12, lines 55-60, authorized swipe pattern can be a set of curves or lines – a set could be a set of 1). The combination of Barnes, ‘073, Raviv and Dutt does not explicitly teach wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe consisting of a continuous touch path. Haider teaches wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe consisting of a continuous touch path (Col. 11, lines 63-67, maintaining contact with screen for a certain length is required during a swipe). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt with the teachings of Haider, wherein the user input is indicative of the swipe input based on the swipe consisting of a continuous touch path, to ensure that the physical possession of a user device is continuously with an authorized user which improves overall security of private and sensitive data. As per claim 6, the combination of Barnes, Griffin, Raviv and Dutt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user input indicates that the swipe includes at least one of: a straight line, or an arcuate path with a single curve (Barnes; Col. 12, lines 55-60, authorized swipe pattern can be a set of curves or lines – a set could be a set of 1) (Examiner Notes: that the claim language only requires a line or a curve – Examiner notes that Barnes teaches both see id. ). The combination of Barnes, ‘073, Raviv and Dutt does not explicitly teach wherein the user input indicates that the swipe includes a continuous touch path. Haider teaches wherein the user input indicates that the swipe includes a continuous touch path (Col. 11, lines 63-67, maintaining contact with screen for a certain length is required during a swipe). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barnes, JP ‘073, Raviv and Dutt with the teachings of Haider, wherein the user input indicates that the swipe includes a continuous touch path, to ensure that the physical possession of a user device is continuously with an authorized user which improves overall security of private and sensitive data. As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to the objection to claims 1, 5 and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the objection is hereby withdrawn. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of amended claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, 18-21 and 24-26 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new prior art references, Dutt. To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss the current rejection and claim amendments to advance prosecution. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jagannathan et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0083007), Otsuka et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0213332), Cumbo (US PGPUB No. 2019/0152433), Kumar et al. ("Continuous authentication of smartphone users by fusing typing, swiping, and phone movement patterns," 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), Niagara Falls, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/BTAS.2016.7791164) and Feng et al. ("An investigation on touch biometrics: Behavioral factors on screen size, physical context and application context," 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), Waltham, MA, 2015, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/THS.2015.7225318) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including storing and matching previously registered swipe/tap gestures and patterns to authorize user access to a device . 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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex. 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, Carl Colin can be reached on 571-272-3862. 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. /PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 May 26, 2026 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 2 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 3 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 4 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 5 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 6 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 7 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 8 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 9 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 10 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 11 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 12 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 17/643,270 Page 13 Art Unit: 2493
Prosecution Insights