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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The examiner notes that the applicants amendments to the claims do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121 in that not all changes have been shown using proper marking. For example, claim 5 amended the language “an array of anonymized or artificially-generated user (AAGU) data” to “an array of anonymized or artificially-generated user (AAGU)” without showing proper markings. In order to not further delay prosecution, the examiner has examined the application and issued the following office action.
Claims 1-6, and 25-26 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 25-26 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds 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.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 25 each recite “the output structure” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “the AAGU data” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner will presume that “an array of anonymized or artificially-generated user (AAGU)” was meant to read “an array of anonymized or artificially-generated user (AAGU) data”.
All claims depending from any of the above rejected claims are also rejected by virtue of their dependence upon their respective rejected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solano Gomez et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0224683) hereinafter referred to as Solano.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Solano disclosed a system (Solano Fig. 5 for example) comprising:
a processor;
a computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a behavioral biometric pattern (BBP) associated with a user (Solano Paragraphs 0062-0080 for example);
generating, based on an algorithm processing the BBP relative to an array of anonymized or artificially-generated user (AAGU), an output matrix comprising an array of AAGU matching scores representing a similarity between the user and the AAGU data (Solano Paragraphs 0062-0080 for example – further see paragraphs 0038 and 0065); and
utilizing the output matrix to authenticate a new user by comparing the output matrix with previously generated output matrices from training BBPs of a training user (Solano Paragraphs 0010-0011 and 0051-0061 for example – further see paragraphs 0038 and 0065).
Regarding claims 2 and 25, Solano disclosed that the output structure comprises a similarity between the BBP and the AAGU data (Solano Paragraphs 0062-0080 for example).
Regarding claims 3 and 26, Solano disclosed that the algorithm operating on the system comprises at least one of a machine learning algorithm, an artificial intelligence algorithm and a neural network having at least an input layer, none, one or more hidden layers and an output layer (Solano Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0062-0080 for example).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Solano disclosed that the output structure comprises one of an output matrix from the algorithm, a modified AAGU or data associated with any layer associated with the algorithm (Solano Paragraphs 0062-0080 for example).
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, and 25-26 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,271,456 briefly mentions the idea of utilizing synthesized user behavioral data for training authentication models to avoid violating user privacy.
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 MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-2PM 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights