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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 2 of the remarks, Applicant states that claims 1-25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ("112(b)") as being indefinite, in particular, use of the term "such that" as it constitutes intended use, with Applicant stating that use of "such that" is used to define homomorphic encryption techniques maintain encryption of the underlying data during authentication and is not indefinite, and maintains that "such that" is not indefinite, and requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner disagrees regarding the arguments of the rejections of 112(b) for the independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As stated in MPEP § 2175.05(d), "Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”)", the description of examples or preferences must be set forth in the Specification rather than the claims, and in lines 9-11, the use of the term "such that" in "encrypt the one or more account credentials of the first user via one or more homomorphic techniques such that authenticating the first user based upon the one or more account credentials maintains encryption [...]" it would be unclear if constitutes intended result scope of the claim as homomorphic encryption is to be used “authenticating “ is part of the claimed invention, as there is no recitation of positively about authentication which lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. Applicant appears to read limitations that are not claimed “during authentication” where this is simply not claimed. On the contrary, the claims does not set forth clearly any authentication and in the case of claim 1, what part of the system perform such authentication. Applicant in the argument appears to add to confusion since the Applicant states “Applicant notes …does not attribute patentable weight to this feature”, which evidence that the Applicant’s themselves fail to clarify whether the limitation is part of the claim or not and explain how the claim language as drafted clarify the intended scope. As a result, this raises confusion as to whether authenticating first user’s account credentials while maintaining encryption is an integral aspect of the invention to make or use with regards to encryption of account credentials via one or more homomorphic techniques. Examiner maintains the rejections under 112(b) for the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and the dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 25 inherit the rejections of their respective independent claims.
Furthermore, in pages 2-3 of the remarks, Applicant states that the claims 1-20 and 21-25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ("112(a)") as failing to comply with the written description requirement, and disagrees with the rejections. Applicant states that the Office Action ("OA") alleges that the Specification fails to describe how spectral characteristics of at least a portion of the pixels of the hypercube objects encode encrypted account credentials. Applicant states that the paragraphs [0056] and [0062] describes "spectral characteristics (e.g. reflectance, refractive, index [...]) at various wavelengths [...] may be used to encode the account credentials of the first user", and that "hypercube objects [...] may refer to three-dimensional data sets that include two spatial dimensions and one spectral dimension", with one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate the meaning of the terms "spectral characteristics" described by the present application and would further understand the definition of hypercube objects in paragraph [0062] of the Specification. Applicant also states that a reflectance, a refractive index, a radiative intensity, etc., include a numerical value representing those characteristics, and finally, the hyperspectral range of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum corresponds to an account credential, another numerical value), and requests the rejections under 112(a) be withdrawn for the claims.
Examiner states that the description of "spectral characteristics (e.g. reflectance, refractive, index [...])" in paragraph [0056] and [0062] that can be expressed in "various wavelengths (IR or visible spectrums)", and amends the claims to comprise "a reflectance and a radiative intensity", previously in claims 22 and 24. Examiner maintains the rejection of "spectral characteristics" for the claims of the Applicant, as while the Specification explains what the spectral characteristics and hypercube objects might include as in paragraph [0056] and [0062], the Specification still does not explain how the spectral characteristics in a hypercube object encode the one or more encrypted account credentials of the user. Furthermore, the spectral characteristics (reflectance, a refractive index, radiative intensity) are used to encode account credentials of the first user in a hyperspectral image, but the Specification does not clarify how these spectral characteristics are encoded at all, thus insufficient detail, only stating the desired capable result in the Specification. Applicant’s passage makes it clear that the Applicant described nothing more than a desirability of “contemplates that any attribute, characteristic, parameter, etc. of a resulting hyperspectral image may be varied by the hyperspectral image data generated at operation 208 based upon the intended application of the system 130 and/or the nature of the account credentials of the first use”. Indeed, evidence that Applicant simply claimes the genus but fails to described how such functionality ius achieved other than stating simply stating “evident to one of ordinary skill in the art”. However, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Simply put, the claims read as a functional result (“encode credentials in spectral characteristics”) without possession described in the specification of how to do it.
Furthermore, the rejection of 112(a) for the claims regarding the use of "at least a portion of the pixels" remains unclear, as while paragraphs [0057] and [0061] state the "at least a portion of the pixels" being used to 'encode, [or] represent' account credentials of the user, Applicant states that "a subset of the pixels of the hyperspectral image" may be used or a single pixel may be used, and that the term refers to each of the interpretations, with the Specification never stating it to be the case, nor is "portion of the pixels" defined in the claims. Examiner maintains the rejection of "a portion of pixels" of 112(a) for the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and the rejection of "spectral characteristics" of 112(a) for the claims of the Applicant, and the dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 25 inherit the rejections of their respective independent claims. The spec does not disclose representative species covering that breadth (e.g., single-pixel spectral encoding). See LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (insufficient support for broad genus where only one way is taught). The spec merely and repeatedly states that spectral characteristics (reflectance, refractive index, radiative intensity, etc.) and hypercube objects can be used to encode account credentials (see ¶¶[0056], [0057], [0061], [0062] as cited in prosecution). It also says “at least a portion of the pixels” may encode credentials. The spec contains conceptual statements ”desirable results” that “these spectral characteristics may be used to encode account credentials,” but no operational embodiment or representative species for single‑pixel encoding exist which falls short of providing sufficient written description to have possession of the broad and genus claimed invention. Claiming that any “portion of the pixels” (which literally includes a single pixel) may encode credentials requires the spec to show possession of that capability. A PHOSITA must be able to see in the spec at least a representative implementation or a unifying principle to have possession and enabling the full claimed genus (Ariad). The spec does not do so for single‑pixel encoding or any combination thereof.
In pages 3-5, Applicant states that the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darty (WO2013184226), Alford (WO2014114952), and Gulak (US 20170293913). Applicant then recites the independent claim 1, putting emphasis on the limitations of "and wherein one or more spectral characteristics comprising a reflectance and a radiative intensity of at least a portion of the pixels of the one or more unique hypercube objects each encode the one or more encrypted account credentials of the user; generate, via the hyperspectral imaging module, a hyperspectral image based on the hyperspectral image data; and cause, via a printing device communicably coupled with the processor, application of the hyperspectral image to a body of a resource transfer object", claim 1, lines 16-23. Applicant states that the Office Action acknowledges the deficiency of Darty with regards to 'encrypting account credentials' and relies of Alford to teach this functionality. The deficiency of Darty and Alford with regards to 'homomorphic encryption' and relies on Gulak to teach this functionality. Applicant states that the references of Darty, Alford, and Gulak in combination fail to suggest multiple layers of security as recited in the independent claims, in particular that the user account credentials are encrypted via one or more homomorphic techniques and then the encrypted account credentials are used to generate hyperspectral image data that leverages spectral characteristics that encode already encrypted account credentials, with the features not found in the cited references, and requests the rejection for the independent claims be withdrawn.
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Darty in view of Alford and Gulak, in particular with the Applicant stating that the combination of references fail to suggest "multiple layers of security" with regards to user account credentials being encrypted with one or more homomorphic techniques; Paragraph [0088] of Gulak states that account credentials are encrypted via a homomorphic technique, where account credentials include expiry date on the card, account/credit card number, and other information present on the card, and paragraph [0104] expands on the explanation in that the authentication of the credit card uses the encrypted data, corresponding to the authentication of the first user based on one or more account credentials based on encrypted account credentials by one or more homomorphic techniques. Furthermore, the claims make no such statement of "multiple layers of security", as it involves one or more homomorphic techniques, and the generating of a hyperspectral image, the latter of which is stated in the reference of Anthony in paragraph [0108], where hyperspectral image data is encrypted using one or more encryption algorithms, which includes the patient identifier, corresponding to account credentials of a first user. As a result of now canceled claims 2, 22, and 24 being integrated into the independent claims, Examiner states a new ground of rejections of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup, and the dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 25 inherit the rejections of their respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17, 20-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 13-15, use of the phrase ‘one or more spectral characteristics of at least a portion for the pixels of the one or more unique hypercube objects encode the one or more encrypted account credentials of the user’ does not have support in the specification for performing the aforementioned function of the invention of the applicant. In paragraph [0056], the specification describes a plurality of pixels as a portion of a hyperspectral image, and the plurality of pixels encodes particular data of the first user, such as account credentials, via means of reflectance, refractive index, radiative intensity, among other characteristics that function similarly. However, the spectral characteristics (reflectance, a refractive index, radiative intensity) are only stated to encode account credentials of the first user in a hyperspectral image, and the Specification does not clarify how these spectral characteristics encode the account credentials in sufficient detail, only stating the desired result in the Specification. Radiative intensity and reflectance are not described as to how those properties are used to encode the account credentials, such as whether by a photograph or conversion of values.
Furthermore, in claim 1, in lines 13-15, use of the phrase “one or more spectral characteristics of at least a portion for the pixels of the one or more unique hypercube objects” meaning a subset of pixels in the hyperspectral image, or it may also mean that a single pixel of a plurality of pixels contains the spectral characteristics. In paragraph [0057] and [0061] of the Specification of the Applicant, it is stated that a portion of the pixel can encode, represent the account credentials of the user. However, the Specification does not provide an example as to how this limitation is performed by the invention.
In claims 3, 7, 21, and 23, dependent claims of an independent claim that are relied upon inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim 1, and are therefore, rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
In claim 8, in lines 11-13, the limitations described in claim 1 are replicated in this independent claim, and is therefore rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
In claims 10, and 14, dependent claims of an independent claim that are relied upon inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim 8, and are therefore, rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
In claim 15, in lines 10-12, the limitations described in claims 1 and 8 are replicated in this independent claim, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1 and 8.
In claim 17, 20, and 25, dependent claims of an independent claim that are relied upon inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim 15, and are therefore, rejected for the same reason as claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17, 20-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darty (WO 2013184226 A1), in view of Alford et al. (WO 2014114952 A1), hereinafter Alford, Gulak et al. (US 20170293913 A1), hereinafter Gulak, Skaff et al. (US 20130201342 A1), hereinafter Skaff, Wang et al. (US 20130235178 A1), hereinafter Wang, and Bettentrup (WO 2018010736 A1, citations from English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Darty discloses ‘a resource transfer system with authentication based on hyperspectral imaging, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device’ ([0010] Non-transitory storage medium with instructions, and a processor executes the instructions of a disclosed invention.);
‘and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to’ ([0010] Non-transitory storage medium with instructions, and a processor executes the instructions of a disclosed invention. [0027] Client sends request to a server to process a set for hyperspectral image processing when client pays with a credit source, which corresponds to a resource transfer system, after a request for a unique patient identifier or receiving a hyperspectral image data set. [0056] Comparison of the patient identifiers corresponds to the authentication of a resource transfer system based on hyperspectral imaging.):
‘receive a request for hyperspectral image generation associated with a first user’ ([0025] Client request is needed to then proceed with the hyperspectral image generation with regards to a patient identifier.);
‘receive one or more account credentials of the first user’ ([0101] Patient identity corresponds to the account credentials of the first user. [0025] When a request is made, a client receives patient data from a server.);
‘generate, via a hyperspectral imaging module, hyperspectral image data based on the one or more encrypted account credentials of a first user’ ([0008] Hyperspectral image data set includes a plurality of sub-images of an object and unique patient identifier, received from a hyperspectral imaging device. Also, from a hyperspectral imaging device, a hyperspectral image data set. [0108] Hyperspectral image data is encrypted using one or more encryption algorithms.),
‘wherein the hyperspectral image data comprises one or more unique hypercube objects formed of a plurality of pixels’ ([0102] Figure 3, hypercube 318 is part of hyperspectral image data set 107. Also, hypercube objects are comprised of hyperspectral image data, which is needed to proceed to the step of creating a hyperspectral image, and sub-images used to form the hypercube, which consist of sub-pixels of the sub-images, which correspond to pixels of the sub-images as stated in paragraph [0069] of Darty.),
‘and wherein one or more spectral characteristics of at least a portion of the pixels of the one or more unique hypercube objects encode the one or more encrypted account credentials of the user’ ([0033] Imaging device 104 contains an optical detector 142 to collect images after illuminating an object in light in a plurality of different wavelengths, which correspond to a sub-image of Darty or a spectral hypercube 318 comprised of the sub-images containing spectral characteristics, along with a unique patient identifier as part of a hyperspectral image data set, as stated in paragraph [0008] of Darty. [0069] Functions of imaging device 104 include assembling sub-images into a spectral hypercube, which include the sub-pixels that were processed for the sub-images that also contain metadata, and patient identity information, which are also stated in paragraph [0070] of Darty.);
‘and generate, via the hyperspectral imaging module, a hyperspectral image based on the hyperspectral image data’ ([0037] Hyperspectral image data set is used to form a hyperspectral image at a server in Darty.).
‘cause, via a printing device communicably coupled with the processor, application of the hyperspectral image’ ([0048] Figure 3, server system 106 includes an image processing module for forming a hyperspectral image, which is part of the memory 306, which is connected to CPU(s) 302 via a communication bus 308.).
Darty does not appear to disclose, but Alford teaches the limitation of ‘encrypt the one or more account credentials of the first user’ ([0035] Extraction of sensitive information happens during the generation of hyperspectral image data as it happens in Darty, and the aforementioned data can be encrypted with an encryption algorithm.);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Darty and Alford before them, to include Alford’s ‘encrypt the one or more account credentials of the first user’ in Darty’s resource transfer system performing ‘authentication based on hyperspectral imaging’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by encrypting image files, including bitmaps, such that the information can remain secure, and encryption seeds are utilized in the form of one time passcodes (OTPs) to allow for systems such as a banking application to remain safe to use, as taught by Alford [0032].
Darty in view of Alford does not appear to fully teach, but Gulak teaches the limitation of ‘via one or more homomorphic techniques such that authenticating the first user based upon the one or more account credentials of the first user maintains encryption of the one or more encrypted account credentials’ ([0088] Account credentials are being encrypted by a homomorphic technique, the account credentials can include the expiry date on the card, the account/credit card number, among other information on the card, and in paragraph [0104], it is stated that authentication of a credit card uses the encrypted data, corresponding to authenticating the first user based upon one or more account credentials of the first user maintaining encryption of the one or more encrypted account credentials of the Applicant.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, having the teachings of Darty, Alford, and Gulak before them, to include Gulak’s ‘via one or more homomorphic techniques such that authenticating the first user based upon the one or more account credentials of the first user maintains encryption of the one or more encrypted account credentials’ in Darty’s resource transfer system performing ‘authentication based on hyperspectral imaging’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve security such that ‘fully homomorphic encryption permits addition and multiplication operations on encrypted data to generate an encrypted result, which, when decrypted, gives the correct result if the same set of operations were applied on unencrypted data’, such that only the organization, user, or the computer that encrypts the data is authorized and has the algorithm to decrypt the information or is able to perform operations on the encrypted data, as taught by Gulak [0105].
Darty in view of Alford and Gulak does not appear to teach, but Skaff teaches the limitation of ‘wherein one or more spectral characteristics comprising a reflectance of the pixels’ ([0029] Vector representation of a pixel in hyperspectral image data has a variable for reflectance of a pixel, with [0018] allowing multiple pixels of interest to be selected to begin a process of determining reflectance.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Darty, Alford, Gulak, and Skaff before them, to include Skaff’s ‘wherein one or more spectral characteristics comprising a reflectance of the pixels’ in Darty’s resource transfer system performing system performing ‘wherein one or more spectral characteristics of at least a portion of the pixels of the one or more unique hypercube objects encode the one or more encrypted account credentials of the user’ and ‘authentication based on hyperspectral imaging’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by containing an IR illuminator and an IR detector to capture IR light reflected from a target object, and output an IR image of the target in the form of pixels that can be determined by the invention of Skaff, as taught by Skaff [0021].
Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, and Skaff does not appear to teach, but Wang teaches the limitation of ‘wherein the one or more spectral characteristics comprise a radiative intensity of the pixels’ ([0028] "Array of detectors" are sensors that are arranged in a 2D grid that sample radiation emitted by an illumination source and record intensity values at pixels along the 2D grid, which corresponds to radiative intensity of the pixels.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Darty, Alford, Gulak, Skaff, and Wang before them, to include Wang’s ‘wherein the one or more spectral characteristics comprise a radiative intensity of the pixels’ in Darty’s resource transfer system performing system performing ‘wherein one or more spectral characteristics of at least a portion of the pixels of the one or more unique hypercube objects encode the one or more encrypted account credentials of the user’ and ‘authentication based on hyperspectral imaging’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by having an IR camera detecting and sampling radiation emitted by at least one light source and also recording the intensity values of the radiation onto multiple pixel locations containing pixels to include more information about an object and its properties to assist with optics and recording of an image, as taught by Wang [0015].
Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, and Wang does not appear to teach, but Bettentrup teaches the limitation of ‘application of the hyperspectral image to a body of a resource transfer object’ ([Page 6, lines 32-37] Printing structures applied onto the object correspond to the application of the hyperspectral image to a body of a resource transfer object.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, having the teachings of Darty, Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup before them, to include Bettentrup’s ‘application of the hyperspectral image to a body of a resource transfer object’ in Darty’s resource transfer system performing ‘cause, via a printing device communicably coupled with the processor, application of the hyperspectral image’ and ‘authentication based on hyperspectral imaging’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve efficiency by means of being ‘advantageous that the primary identification features can be placed on the article in a simple manner (even in mass printing processes). Of course, a labeling of individual items in the form of a unique designation is possible’ so that each item can be printed individually and at a fast pace with simplified printing methods, as taught by Bettentrup [Page 6, lines 11-15].
Regarding claim 3, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Darty also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein, in operation, the hyperspectral image data is configured to authenticate the first user as related to effectuating resource transfer associated with an account of the first user as defined by the one or more account credentials’ ([0028] Client lookup table includes patient information, such as name, date of birth, address, and more. [0027] Fee request to a credit source corresponds to the effectuating of resource transfer, and a unique patient identifier is part of hyperspectral image data set, which is used to authenticate a first user.).
Regarding claim 7, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Darty also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein the one or more account credentials of the first user are received in response to a user input of the one or more account credentials or via access to a data repository storing the one or more account credentials’ ([0064] Client sends request to receive patient identifier from a server. [0101] Client stores information identifying patient identity and unique identifier in a lookup table, which corresponds to a database, or data repository of the applicant, and patent contains information identifying various aspects, including name, home or work address, date of birth, and more.).
Regarding claim 8, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach similar limitations also present in independent claim 1 as recited above. Darty also discloses of “a computer program product for resource transfers with authentication based on hyperspectral imaging, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to” ([0122] "The foregoing description included example systems, methods, techniques, instruction sequences, and computing machine program products that embody illustrative implementations" [0116] "The computer readable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium may be in source code, assembly language code, object code, or other instruction format that is interpreted and/or executable by one or more processors", which can be stored as the computer program product.)
Regarding claim 10, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the computer program product of claim 8 as recited above. Darty also discloses similar limitation also present in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the computer program product of claim 8 as recited above. Darty also discloses similar limitation also present in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach similar limitations also present in independent claim 1 as recited above. Darty also discloses of “a method for resource transfers with authentication based on hyperspectral imaging, the method comprising” ([0008] "The method includes obtaining a request for a unique patient identifier from a first client computer in a plurality of client computers... the method further includes receiving, from a hyperspectral imaging device, a hyperspectral image data set. The hyperspectral image data set includes a plurality of sub-images of an object and the unique patient identifier." [0056] "In some implementations, the server 106 compares the patient identifier associated with a hyperspectral image data set with patient identifiers stored in the server lookup table 108 to identify a specific client 102 to which a hyperspectral image is to be transmitted. The server 106 then transmits the hyperspectral image to the identified client 102", where the comparison of the patient identifiers corresponds to the authentication of a resource transfer system based on hyperspectral imaging.).
Regarding claim 17, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the method of claim 15 as recited above. Darty also discloses similar limitation also present in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the method of claim 15 as recited above. Darty also discloses similar limitation also present in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 21, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Darty does not appear to teach, but Skaff teaches the limitation of 'wherein the one or more spectral characteristics are determined at various wavelengths' ([0023] Spectral imaging allow extraction of information that a human eye fails to detect, which corresponds to determining spectral characteristics of the applicant. [0029] Variable M is a dimension of a spectrum in a visible wavelength range, which determines pixels, and in turn, spectral characteristics of hyperspectral image. Also shown is spectral reflectance of pixels in Fig. 3.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Darty, Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup before them, to include Skaff's 'wherein the one or more spectral characteristics are determined at various wavelengths' in Darty's system performing system performing 'authentication based on hyperspectral imaging'. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by separating an infrared spectrum into various wavelength bands as it will make it easier to distinguish various parts that have been read as pixels, as taught by Skaff [0019].
Regarding claim 23, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Darty does not appear to teach, but Wang teaches the limitation of ‘wherein the one or more spectral characteristics comprise a refractive index of the pixels’ ([0031] As image intensity is also inputted into the pixels of Wang as it is being recorded, image intensity Is calculated via a formula with variables, and an alpha variable is a constant that depends on an angle and distance from the illumination source, and is an intensity value in a plurality of intensity values recorded by sensors 108 described in paragraph [0037], in which the angle corresponds to a refractive index of the applicant.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Darty, Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup before them, to include Wang’s ‘wherein the one or more spectral characteristics comprise a refractive index of the pixels’ in Darty’s system performing system performing ‘authentication based on hyperspectral imaging’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by as an 'array of detectors' are configured to record various intensity values, and the sensitivities of the sensors can be selectable/tuned using a controller, as taught by Wang [0028].
Regarding claim 25, Darty in view of Alford, Gulak, Skaff, Wang, and Bettentrup teach the method of claim 15 as recited above. Darty also discloses similar limitation also present in claim 23 above.
Conclusion
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 TOMMY MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-4PM ET.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624 on Monday thru Friday, 7AM-7PM ET. 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.
/T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496