DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 01/09/2026. Claims 1 – 6, 22, 26 – 36 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 22, 26, 28 - 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streit (Pub. No.: US 2020/0044852) referred to as Streit in view of Toshiyuki et al. (EP 2991265) referred to as Toshiyuki.
Regarding claim 1, Streit teaches receiving user authentication data associated with a user [202, Fig 2A];
generating output from a neural network model based on the user authentication data [206, Fig 2A; Figs 4C – 4D; The neural network outputs vectors and decisions with regard if the user is a known or unknown person];
determining a distance between the output and an embedding vector associated with the user [208, Figs 2A and 10; Paragraphs 0125 – 0127 and 0162 – 0165; The authentication is based on a comparison of vectors of the inputted biometric data and stored verified biometric data vectors];
comparing the determined distance to a distance threshold [208, Fig 2B; 1004, Fig 10; Paragraphs 0005 and 0162 – 0165; A distance between a verified vector and an input vector for authentication is determined and compared to a threshold to determine if a user is authenticated or not]; and
making an authentication decision based on the comparing [208, Fig 2B; Paragraphs 0005 and 0162 – 0165; A distance between a verified vector and an input vector for authentication is determined and compared to a threshold to determine if a user is authenticated or not].
However, Streit may not specifically disclose the limitation(s) of wherein the embedding vector is based, at least in part, on a codeword.
Toshiyuki discloses the embedding vector is based, at least in part, on a codeword [Paragraphs 0108 – 0131; Information that is used for verification is protected base on a BCH codeword].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Toshiyuki in Streit, because BCH is a well-known encoding scheme with a high level of predictability that protects data from random patterns of errors using a simple method that can be realized on a reasonable amount of equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Streit teaches the user authentication data comprises one or more of: audio data [1006, Fig 10; Paragraph 0125; Voice data is audio data], video data, image data [1004, Fig 10; Paragraph 0125; Images captured of a user are image data and video data. Video is just a series of images], sensor data [1004 and 1006, Fig 10; Paragraph 0125; Image and voice data are obtained through the use of a sensor that is able to obtain the specific type of data], or biometric data [1004 and 1006, Fig 10; Paragraph 0125; Image and voice data of a user are both examples of biometric data of the user].
Regarding claim 4, Streit teaches the distance between the output and the embedding vector associated with the user is computed according to d = ||ŷ - y||2
y is the embedding vector associated with the user, and
ŷ is the model output [Paragraphs 0006, 0008, 0025 – 0026, 0161 – 0163; The equation is a Euclidean equation and the vectors being Euclidean measurable feature vectors shows the use of the Euclidean equation in the process of making the distance calculation].
Regarding claim 5, Streit teaches wherein making an authentication decision further comprises authenticating the user based on the user authentication data if the distance between the output and the embedding vector associated with the user is less than the distance threshold [Paragraphs 0005 and 0078; A user is authenticated when the distance is less than a distance threshold].
Regarding claim 6, Streit teaches the distance threshold is configured such that a True Positive Rate (TPR) is equal to or greater than 90%, and
the TPR is defined as a rate that the user is correctly authenticated [Paragraph 0108; TABLE II – IV; The system is configured with 90% authentication based on certain configurations of the neural network].
Regarding claim 34, Toshiyuki discloses the codeword is based on an error correction code scheme [Paragraphs 0108 – 0131; The BCH is an error correction scheme used to create the codeword].
Regarding claim 35, Toshiyuki discloses the error correction code scheme comprises a Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem (BCH) coding scheme [Paragraphs 0108- 0131].
Regarding claim 36, Toshiyuki discloses the codeword is associated with the user and wherein the error correction code scheme ensures the codeword associated with the user is a threshold distance from any other codeword associated with any other user [Paragraphs 0108 – 0131; The BCH codeword is based on user data showing the codeword is associated with the user of the data. The BCH scheme uses a Hamming distance between any different codewords that exceeds a threshold distance].
Claims 22, 26, and 28 – 33 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1 2, 4 – 6, and 34 - 36 and are rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning. Streit further teaches a processor system [600, Fig 6] containing a memory comprising instructions [Paragraphs 0035 and 0244; There is no figure 8 or items 800, 810, 820, or 830. It appears this is all meant to reference figure 6 and items 600, 610, 620, and 630 accordingly] that cause a processor [610, Fig 6] to execute instructions to perform functions [Paragraphs 0012 and 0244] of the processor system [600, Fig 6].
Claim(s) 3 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streit (Pub. No.: US 2020/0044852) referred to as Streit in view of Toshiyuki et al. (EP 2991265) referred to as Toshiyuki as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of Garcia et al. (Pu. No.: 2008/0201282) referred to as Garcia.
Regarding claim 3, Streit teaches the neural network model is configured with a sigmoid function for generating the output [206, Fig 2A; Figs 4C – 4D; Paragraphs 0102 and 0178; A sigmoid function is used by the neural network to generate an output].
However, Streit in view of Toshiyuki may not specifically disclose the limitation of the sigmoid function being a sigmoid non-liner activation function.
Garcia discloses a sigmoid function being a sigmoid non-liner activation function [Paragraphs 0127 – 0129].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Garcia in Streit in view of Toshiyuki, because both are directed to the act of verifying identification based on images of a user and the sigmoid non-liner activation function is commonly used is machine learning since they help neural networks understand and learn from complex patterns by using non-linearity allowing the neural network to capture intricate and non-linear relationships such as images and voices of real people that behaviors that are not straightforward or linear which allows the neural network to handle these complexities.
Claims 27 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1 – 6 and are rejected using the same prior art and similar reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01-09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 7 – 9 that the claims are allowable since the prior art fails to teach the amended limitations. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The amendments have changed the scope of the claims requiring further search and consideration of the prior art. The new grounds of rejection are a result of the further search and consideration of the prior art. The examiner suggests amending the claims to include further details defining the inventive concept from the specification to overcome the cited prior art and further advance prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138