DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of claims
This office action is in response to claims filed on 11/06/2025; the provisional application date filed on 10/29/2021 is considered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13-19 are pending and rejected; Claims 1, 7 and 13 are independent claims; Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 20 and 21 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed on 10/29/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebl, III et al. US Pub. No.: 2015/0288694 A1, (hereinafter Liebl) in view of Hwang et al. US Pub. No.: 2004/0164848 A1 (hereinafter Hwang).
Liebl teaches:
As to claim 1, a system for managing access point authentication requirements for an access control system, the system comprising:
at least one processor (see Liebl Figs. 1A and 8); and
memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (see Liebl Figures 1A-1B and Fig. 8), the instructions when executed cause the system to:
automatically generate a partial identification for a user at an access point (see Liebl Fig. 2A and ¶54, In Step 204, the ledger generates a partial credential… partial credential may be a credential that includes any information related to a user other than signature entries, which the user has not yet provided)
assign a first identification score to the user based on the partial identification (see Liebl Fig. 2A and ¶¶57-58, the credential application prompts the user to provide signatures in response to one or more factors of authentication specified in the partial credential.. the credential application scores each signature);
responsive to the first identification score being below a pre-determined identification score,
obtain user information related to the user (see Liebl Fig. 2B and ¶67-68, if the score threshold is not met by the total score represented by the signature entries of the credential, …the credential application prompt a user to provide signatures corresponding to additional factors of authentication);
adjust the first identification score based on the obtained user information
(see Liebl Fig. 3B and ¶¶80-81 if the total score does not meet or exceed the scoring threshold, … an additional signature entry and signature obtained from the user are used to verify an additional factor of authentication, score the signature, and add/adjust the score to the total score [i.e. add/adjust the first identification score based on user information/signature obtained from the user]);
authenticate the user at the access point responsive to the identification score reaching a pre-determined identification score threshold (see Liebl ¶83 if the scoring threshold has been met, the ledger may inform the resource control entity that the verification was successful… the resource control entity decides to grant or deny a user access to a resource based, at least in part, on the notification received from the ledger regarding the user verification results)
Liebl does not explicitly teach but the related art Hwang teaches:
adjust the pre-determined identification score threshold based on the obtained user information (see Hwang ¶¶52 77 and claim 24, adjusting a threshold level of a biometrics device which reads a user's biometric information based on a password input by a user, wherein the threshold level is broadened when the user inputs a valid password to increase the possibility of the user being authenticated by the biometrics device, and the threshold level is narrowed when the user inputs an invalid password to decrease the possibility of the user being authenticated by the biometrics device; ¶30, adjusts a level of security depending on the extent to which input biometrics information matches with registered biometrics information [i.e. based on score (extent information matches with the registered information)])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the secure authentication using partial credentials disclosed by Liebl to include update/adjustment the pre-determined identification score threshold disclosed by Hwang. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust a level of security depending on the extent to which input biometrics information matches with registered biometrics information to reduce false rejection (FR), or false acceptance (FA) of authentication. (see Hwang ¶11).
As to claim 2, the combination of Liebl and Hwang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user information is obtained from the access control system (see Liebl ¶16, If the authentication is successful, the user may be granted access to a resource (e.g., unlocking a lock, proceeding with a secure financial transaction, gaining access to a secure portion of a website, etc.) by the resource control entity).
As to claim 3, (Canceled)
As to claim 4, the combination of Liebl and Hwang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user information comprises one or more of identification information, biometric information, or behavioral information (see Liebl ¶21, factors of authentication include, but are not limited to, passwords, pin numbers, responses to secret questions, various motions/gestures, spoken words or phrases, biometric data, and/or image data)
As to claim 5, the combination of Liebl and Hwang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed cause the system to: request additional identification information from the user responsive to the identification score being below the pre-determined identification score threshold (see Liebl Fig. 3B and ¶¶80-81, if the total score does meet or exceed the scoring threshold, the process returns to Step 350, and an additional signature entry and signature obtained from the user are used to verify an additional factor of authentication, score the signature, and add the score to the total score. In one or more embodiments of the invention, if there are no additional signature entries in the credential, the process proceeds to Step)
As to claim 6, (Canceled).
As to claim 9, (Canceled).
As to claim 12, (Canceled).
As to claim 14, the combination of Liebl and Hwang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed cause the system to not authenticate the user at the access point responsive to the adjusted identification score being below the pre-determined identification score threshold (see Liebl Fig. 3B and ¶83, if the scoring threshold is not met, then the ledger may notify the resource control entity of the failed attempted to authenticate the user. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the resource control entity decides to grant or deny a user access to a resource based, at least in part, on the notification received from the ledger regarding the user verification results).
As to claim 17, the combination of Liebl and Hwang teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user information comprises behavioral information (Applicant own disclosure recite ¶27, “the behavioral characteristics may include motion, position, or orientation of one or more body parts of the user (e.g., gesture, facial expression, eye movement, head position, etc.)” Accordingly, see Liebl, ¶¶21 58, various motions/gestures, spoken words or phrases, biometric data, and/or image data as factor of authentication)
As to independent claim 7, this claim directed to a method for managing access point authentication requirements executed by the system of claim 1; therefore it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to claim 20, (Canceled).
As to independent claim 13, this claim directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions for managing access point authentication requirements executed by the system of claim 1; therefore it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to dependent claims 8, 10-11, these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claim 2, 4-5; therefore they are rejected along the same rationale.
As to dependent claims 15-16, and 18-19, these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claim 14 and 17; therefore they are rejected along the same rationale.
As to claim 21, (Canceled).
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 NEGA WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Cathy Thiaw can be reached at 5712701138. 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.
NEGA . WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/N.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 12/23/2025