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 .
In a RCE and amendments dated 12/15/2025, applicant(s) amended claims 1 and 11. Claims 1 – 20 are still pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 20 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
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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (U.S Patent No. 8,261,090 B1, hereinafter ‘Matsuoka’) in view of Arcese et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2016/0085565 A1, hereinafter ‘Arcese’).
With respect to claim 1, Matsuoka teaches an information handling system (HIS) (e.g., a system 100, Col 3 (lines 54 – 56), Fig. 1), comprising: a sensor (e.g., a sensor, Col 7 (lines 61 – 65), Fig. 1) configured to obtain biometric data from at least one user present within a field of view (FOV) of the sensor (e.g., configured to obtain facial expression, feature(s) or gesture from at least a user present in an area of the sensor, Col 2 (lines 44 – 50); Col 4 (line 64) to Col 5 (line 49); Col 7 (line 61) to Col 8 (line 8)); a non-transitory memory (e.g., a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium, Col 1 (lines 39 – 42), Fig. 1) configured to store: a first set of program instructions (e.g., a computer program, Col 1 (lines 39 – 49)); and a trusted multi-user (TMU) database (e.g., a database, Col 13 (lines 22 – 45)) containing biometric data corresponding to one or more trusted users (e.g., including biometric feature associated with at least one authenticated user, Col 8 (lines 40 – 51) & Col 11 (lines 10 – 20)); a processing device (e.g., a computing device 102, Col 4 (lines 12 – 41), Fig. 1) configured to execute the first set of program instructions during an active system session (e.g., configured to execute the computer program, Col 1 (lines 39 – 49)) to: detect user presence of a first user present within the FOV of the sensor (e.g., detecting a presence of a first user, Col 3 (line 60) to Col 4 (line 3), Fig. 7), wherein the first user is an authenticated user of the active system session and enrolled as a trusted user in the TMU database (e.g., wherein the first user is an authenticated and stored user in the database, Col 13 (lines 23 – 44)); detect user presence of a second user present within the FOV of the sensor (e.g., detecting another (second or guest) user present around the area of the sensor, Col 2 (lines 2 – 12); Col 3 (line 3 – 13); Col 7 (lines 3 – 18); Col 15 (lines 21 – 29), Fig. 5b); and compare biometric data obtained from the second user with biometric data stored within the TMU database to determine a TMU status of the second user (e.g., compare biometric data obtained from the second user with biometric feature stored by the database to determine a status of the second user, Col 4 (lines 52 – 67); Col 5 (lines 5 – 64); Col 15 (lines 16 – 29); Col 17 (lines 1 – 8)); and a host processor (e.g., a server, Col 9 (lines 8 – 17), Fig. 1) coupled to receive the TMU status of the second user from the processing device, wherein if the TMU status indicates that the second user is an unknown user not included within the TMU database (e.g., if the second user is unauthorized or not found in the database, then the user is required to create new account (user data) or use default user settings, Col 6 (lines 13 – 51); Col 7 (lines 34 – 51) or Col 8 (lines 24 – 39)), the host processor (e.g. said server, Col 9 (lines 8 – 17)) is configured to execute a second set of program instructions (e.g., another program that can be executed within said server, Col 6 (lines 36 – 60)) during the active system session to: display a user presence notification on a display screen of the HIS to notify the first user of the user presence of the second user (e.g., eventually, display an image informing the first user that the second user is close or around, Col 7 (lines 19 – 51)); display a prompt on the display screen to accept the second user (e.g., while the first user is logged in, the first user is prompted to confirm that the first user should be logged off of the computing device and that the second user should be logged on to the computing device, Col 7 (lines 19 – 33), Claim 1); but fails to teach wherein said authenticated user controls access by any other user of the active system session; and that said prompt displayed is to accept said second user as a trusted user for the active system session to provide access to the active system session without authentication of the second user to said active system session; receive confirmation verifying acceptance of the second user as a trusted user; and in response to acceptance of the second user as a trusted user, simultaneously interacting with both the first user and the second user as trusted users, the first user having a first policy, the second user having a second policy.
However, in the same field of endeavor of acquiring biometric data and involving a second user, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well known in the art as evidenced by Arcese. In particular, Arcese teaches: wherein an authenticated user controls access by any other user of the active system session (e.g., wherein an initial user control/manage access by any other user (e.g., new users) of an active user data repository (or profiles), ¶0018 with ¶0021 - ¶0022 & ¶0036); and that a prompt displayed is to accept a second user as a trusted user for the active system session to provide access to the active system session without authentication of the second user to an active system session (e.g., when a second user is detected, a message is displayed to whether or not to approve/accept the second user as another active user (as trusted user), ¶0025); receive confirmation verifying acceptance of the second user as a trusted user (e.g., approval verifying the second user as the other active user, ¶0023 - ¶0027); and in response to acceptance of the second user as a trusted user, simultaneously interacting with both the first user and the second user as trusted users (e.g., when the second user is approved or accepted as the other active user, ¶0023 - ¶0025; the initial user and the second user as active users in order to effectively work together (e.g., co-worker), ¶0021, ¶0025 - ¶0027), the first user having a first policy, the second user having a second policy (e.g., the initial user having his/her own profile (policy in terms of rules), and the second user having another profile, ¶0009, ¶0017 & ¶0033).
Matsuoka and Arcese are combinable because both of them deal with biometric process and interacting with a second user. 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 have the display (message) of Arcese instead of the prompt (message) of Matsuoka would grant/approve the second (new) user to be enrolled or added in order to allow the second user to participate or work together with the existing user (¶0025 - ¶0027 & ¶0034).
Claims 2 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2018/0082052 A1, hereinafter ‘Swart’).
With respect to claim 2, Matsuoka in view of Arcese teaches the information handling system of claim 1, but fails to teach: wherein upon receiving the confirmation verifying acceptance of the second user as a trusted user, the host processor is further configured to execute the second set of program instructions during the active system session to: detect a visual or auditory response from the second user; and generate an enrollment notification to initiate enrollment of the second user within the TMU database upon detecting the visual or auditory response from the second user.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Swart. In particular, Swart teaches wherein upon receiving the confirmation verifying acceptance of the second user as a trusted user, the host processor is further configured to execute the second set of program instructions during the active system session to: detect a visual or auditory response from the second user; and generate an enrollment notification to initiate enrollment of the second user within the TMU database upon detecting the visual or auditory response from the second user (e.g., initiate enrollment for a user upon detecting a response from the user, said response can be spoken or gestured by the user, ¶0022 - ¶0025; keep in mind that enrollment process is required for a new user in order to log in to the system, therefore it applies to the 2nd user of Matsuoka or Arcese).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Matsuoka in view of Arcese as taught by Swart by adding the enrollment process of Swart would collect user enrollment information for a particular service in order to register information for any subsequent authentication process.
With respect to claim 3, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 2, wherein either of Arcese or Swart teaches the visual or auditory response detected from the second user comprises a user gesture (Arcese: e.g., a gesture or phrase detected from the second user, ¶0028, ¶0039; or Swart e.g., said response given from the user comprises a gesture, ¶0025).
With respect to claim 4, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 2, wherein either of Arcese or Swart teaches the visual or auditory response detected from the second user comprises a word or phrase spoken by the second user (Arcese: e.g., a gesture or phrase detected from the second user, ¶0028, ¶0039; or Swart e.g., spoken phrase by the user, ¶0023, ¶0025).
With respect to claim 5, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 2, wherein Swart, even with a combination with Arcese, teaches upon receiving the enrollment notification from the host processor, the processing device is further configured to execute the first set of program instructions during the active system session to: enroll the second user as a trusted user within the TMU database (e.g., initiate enrollment for a user upon detecting a response from the user, said response can be spoken or gestured by the user, ¶0022 - ¶0025; keep in mind that enrollment process is required for a new user in order to log in to the system, therefore it applies to the 2nd user of Matsouka or Arcese).
With respect to claim 6, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 5, wherein Swart teaches upon receiving the enrollment notification from the host processor, the processing device is further configured to execute the first set of program instructions during the active system session to: store biometric data obtained from the second user within the TMU database (e.g., biometric data corresponding to the user who is enrolling should be stored in order to log in the future, ¶0013, ¶0022).
With respect to claim 7, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 6, wherein the biometric data stored within the TMU database includes a facial identifier composed of a plurality of facial landmarks (e.g., in the facial recognition use features or characteristics (e.g. eyes, expression, etc.) of a face to recognize users, Col 2 (lines 51 – 55); Col 4 (lines 12 – 32); Col 5 (line 6) to Col 6 (line 51)).
With respect to claim 8, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 5, wherein upon receiving the enrollment notification from the host processor, the processing device is further configured to execute the first set of program instructions during the active system session to: store policy managed limitations for the second user within the TMU database, wherein the policy managed limitations include one or more limitations restricting access to, or preventing interaction with the HIS (e.g., having stored policy (or profile, account) for secondary, new or guest users is well-known in the art in order to be defined and enforced with default configuration and security settings across users and computers within an Active Directory (AD) environment. Matsuoka teaches an example on how to set configuration/settings for new or second user who haven’t logged before, in providing default settings as shown in Col 5 (line 50) to Col 6 (line 12); Col 8 (lines 24 – 39)).
With respect to claim 9, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 8, wherein the policy managed limitations include a first limitation, which prevents the second user from interacting with the IHS for longer than a predetermined amount of time (e.g., it’s part of policy that can be set or implemented by a manager 512, Col 10 (line 51) to Col 11 (line 3); Col 14 (line 14 – 43)).
With respect to claim 10, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the information handling system of claim 8, wherein the policy managed limitations include a second limitation, which prevents the second user from accessing certain applications or data stored within the HIS (e.g., it’s also part of policy that can be set or implemented by the manager 512, Col 1 (line 62) to Col 2 (line 12); Col 6 (line 61) to Col 7 (line 18); Col 8 (lines 52 – 63) & Col 15 (lines 15 – 29)).
With respect to claim 11, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 and 2. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claims 1 and 2.
With respect to claim 12, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the method of claim 11, wherein prior to displaying the user presence notification on the display screen of the IHS, the method further comprises: comparing biometric data obtained from the second user with biometric data stored within the TMU database to determine if the second user is a trusted user included within the TMU database or an unknown user not included within the TMU database (e.g., compare biometric data obtained from the second user with biometric feature stored by the database to determine a status of the second user, Col 4 (lines 52 – 67); Col 5 (lines 5 – 64); Col 15 (lines 16 – 29); Col 17 (lines 1 – 8)).
With respect to claim 13, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the method of claim 12, wherein said displaying the user presence notification on the display screen of the IHS comprises: displaying the user presence notification on the display screen of the IHS to notify the first user of the user presence of the second user when said comparing determines that the second user is an unknown user (e.g., while the first user is logged in, the first user is prompted to confirm that the first user should be logged off of the computing device and that the second (guest) user should be logged on to the computing device, Col 7 (lines 19 – 33), Claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 3. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 3.
With respect to claim 15, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 3. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 3.
With respect to claim 16, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 4. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 4.
With respect to claim 17, Matsuoka in view of Arcese and further in view of Swart teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said enrolling the second user as a trusted user within the TMU database comprises: storing biometric data obtained from the second user within the TMU database (e.g., when a user data is being created for a new user, biometric data should be also added, Col 5 (lines 50 63) & Col 9 (lines 55 – 67)).
With respect to claim 18, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 8. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 9. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 10. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682