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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 7th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome all objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 6th, 2025. The applicant’s amendment also overcomes the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections regarding narrow and broader ranges in the same claim in claim 12 and lack of antecedent basis in claims 6-8 and 12-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 7th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments on page 7 regarding the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the applicant argues that “the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”. However, use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The claim interpretation is only rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function, which the applicant failed to provide. The term “device” does not provide adequate structure description. Applicant provided only conclusory assertions, without supporting explanation or analysis particularly pointing out why the language of the claim avoids interpretation under 112(f).
As in MPEP 2181, I, A, instead of using "means" in such cases, a substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this case, “device” still invokes 112(f), would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed functions.
In response to the arguments on pages 8-10 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), specifically that the claims are rendered being indefinite. The applicant argues that the office's conclusion of indefiniteness ignores the basic legal tenet requiring claims to be interpreted through the eyes of one having ordinary skill in the art in light of and consistent with the written description of the specification.
In further detail, the applicant argues that “the Examiner's rejection is predicated upon the perception that the "a millimeter (mm) range and/or a centimeter (cm) range" lacks precision, the Examiner is incorrect for at least two reasons: (1) precision is not required; and (2) one having ordinary skill in the art would understand what is being claimed”.
First, it is not be noted that it is unclear what “precision” the Applicant is referring to, since the rejection does not state this assertion.
Now, although precision may not be required (Applicant’s mere conclusory opinion) to be stated to meet the definiteness requirement, relative terms and open-ended claim limitations in this instance makes the claim indefinite (See MPEP 2173.05(c)). The claim limitation only provided measurement units, not an actual range, making the meets and bounds of the claim unascertainable and indefinite. The centimeter (cm) range is not descriptive of what is included in the range (e.g., 0.1 cm and 100 cm both uses the measurement of centimeter, but the range for which it covers is unbounded). Thus, only providing the measurement unit does meet the definiteness requirement.
The applicant also argued that the claim limitation should be “reasonably interpreted in light of and consistent with the written description of the specification”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment (See MPEP 2111.01). The example provided by the applicant that refers to paragraph [0097] which describes “wavelength that ranges from 10 mm to 1 mm”, is a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, and therefore is not imported into the claim. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Moreover, the applicant argues that the “Office Action completely failed to even attempt to offer up a reasoned analysis why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been confused by the language ‘about a facial area of the user,’ particularly when reasonably interpreted in light of and consistent with the written description of the specification”. As previously stated, though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. Therefore, the example provided by the applicant that refers to paragraph [0102] which describes “the first data 102 can comprise information about a facial area 203 of the user 101. This may in particular be the case, if the first data 102 relates to a picture 201 of the face of the user 101, e.g., a "selfie" of the user 101. The biometrical information 202 can in particular be obtained based on the information about a facial area 203 of the user 101”, is a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, and therefore is not imported into the claim. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant also argues that the term "device" is adequate structure for performing the claimed functions and the specification provides sufficient details such that a person or ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure performs the claimed functions.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation simply uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). (see MPEP 2181, I, A).
In further detail, the applicant argues that “As described in paragraph [0001] of the published version of the present application, the present application relates to the field of security scanners (which can also be called body scanners or full body scanners) and to authenticating a user (i.e., the person who passes through the security scanner) of such. Authenticating is in particular facilitated by a user device (such as a mobile phone) of the user. More specifically, the user is authenticated by comparing information captured by the security scanner by means of electromagnetic radiation with visual information captured by the user device. The device 100 for authenticating a user, would be readily understood as a processing or computing device configured to perform the recited functions of claims 1 and 17. Indeed, as described at paragraph [0058], a cloud computing device is an example of device 100. The Office Action again completely failed to even attempt to offer up a reasoned analysis why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been confused by the term "device," particularly when reasonably interpreted in light of and consistent with the written description of the specification.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Though the applicant has provided what specific desire functions the device should perform in the examples provided, the above examples do not cover how (what structure) for such functions are described. Merely stating that “authenticating is in particular facilitated by a user device (such as a mobile phone)” or “comparing information captured by the security scanner by means of electromagnetic radiation with visual information captured by the user device” does not provide any detail on the structure sufficient to perform the functions. MPEP 2181, II, A. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Thus, the examiner maintains the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
In response to the arguments on pages 10-12 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), specifically that the claims are rendered being lack of written description. The applicant argues that “the claimed device would be readily understood as a processing or computing device configured to perform the recited functions of claims 1 and 17.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In further detail, the applicant argues that “As described at paragraph [0058], for example, a cloud computing device is an example of device 100 to perform the operations of claim 1 and method steps of claim 17. The Office Action completely failed to even attempt to offer up a reasoned analysis why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been confused by the term "device," particularly when reasonably interpreted in light of and consistent with the written description of the specification.”
As stated in the previous office action, the applicant does not provide sufficient detail of structure of the claimed invention. The applicant fails to provide the structure of the “device” or the “cloud computing device”. Merely stating the term “cloud computing device” without providing any specific structure or a precise physical structure will be considered as a black box recitation of structure, and therefore is lack of written description.
MPEP 2181, IV, A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. In addition, MPEP 2181, II, B, to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Moreover, the applicant argues that the “To comply with the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) all that is required is that the application reasonably convey to persons skilled in the art that, as of the filing date thereof, the inventor had possession of the subject matter later claimed by him. Forssmann v. Matsuo, 23 USPQ 2d 1548, 1550 (B.P.A.I. 1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is not necessary that the application describe the claim limitations exactly, . . . but only so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented processes including those limitations. In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (C.C.P.A. 1976).”
However, contrary in this application, the applicant does not describe the claim limitations in a way so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented processes including those limitations. Simply stating that the device is a “cloud computing device” without providing any detail of how the result is achieved, is not providing sufficient detail. The applicant merely stated “Advantageously and preferably, the device is a cloud computing device” in [0058], “In particular, the device and/or the cloud computing device can be realized by means of a computer program” in [0060], “Advantageously and preferably, the method is a cloud computing method” in [0083], “Optionally, the device 100 can be a cloud computing device” in [0117], and “The device 100 however can also be provided to the security scanner 105 as a cloud computing device” in [0118]. The above concludes all examples of the applicant’s description of the “cloud computing device”, and not one of the aforementioned examples provided the precise structure for the device claimed. Thus, the applicant fails to provide sufficient structure of the claimed function, and the argument is not persuasive.
Thus, the examiner maintains the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
In response to the arguments on pages 12-15 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, the applicant argues that “at least the amended portions of claim 1 and 17 are amended to further recite the features of dependent claims 5 and 8. Dependent claim 8 was not rejected as being anticipated over Sehgal. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection is moot and should be withdrawn.”
Applicant further argues “the incorporation of the technical feature that the information regarding the medical anomaly includes information regarding at least one selected from thicker liver, oblique position of the spine, hip obliquity, and thyroid problems does not only ensure novelty but also the non-obviousness of the present subject matter according to the amended claim set for the following reasons”.
However, it is unclear what “technical feature” the Applicant is referring to, since the only section where this “data” is mentioned appears on page 18 of the originally files specification and just merely provides examples of non-functional descriptive material, that the data may comprise, as stated “The information 207 regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user 101 may include at least one of: thicker liver; oblique position of the spine; hip obliquity; thyroid problems. These are however just examples to illustrated the function of the device. The information 207 regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user 101 may comprise any information regarding a disease that is detectable by means of electromagnetic waves.” The stated information are mere data, and therefore leads to non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP 2111.05), “the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 17 regarding anticipation by Sehgal are not persuasive. The applicant incorporated limitation from claim 5 and 8, “transmit additional data to the user device, if the user is authenticated successfully” and “wherein the additional data comprises information regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user”. Sehgal does disclose providing confidential or personal information to the user if the user is authorized or authenticated (See Sehgal, [0026], e.g., For example, a remote server can require the electronic device to verify the identity of the user prior to granting access to the content of the remote server, in order to prevent unauthorized access to confidential or personal information. And [0038], e.g., any of the client devices transmit information securely and efficiently to another device, such as, for example, the server. Also, any of the client devices can trigger the information transmission between itself and server). Therefore, the device Sehgal disclosed is capable of performing the transmission of data to user device. Since it is determined that “the additional data comprises information regarding a medical anomaly” is non-functional language, it is established that Sehgal has the technical advantage of performing such function.
In alternative, the method of transmitting medical information to the user is well known in the art. Trikha et. al, US Patent Application Publication No. 20230152652 A1, discloses transmit additional data to the user device ([0117], e.g., transmission may be to an individual and/or to a user), if the user is authenticated successfully ([0143], e.g., employee is authorized); wherein the additional data comprises information regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user ([0143], e.g., If the bodily characteristic(s) are found to be abnormal, then the employee is notified). Kaditz et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20170007148 A1, discloses transmit additional data to the user device, if the user is authenticated successfully ([0227], e.g., The authentication and authorization information may allow the individual to unlock their medical data and/or to input risk-factor information to facilitate determination of the scan plan(s)); wherein the additional data comprises information regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user ([0203], e.g., The summary report may also compare the individual health and MR scan data); and wherein the information regarding the medical anomaly includes information regarding at least one selected from: thicker liver ([0203], e.g., the system may report that the amount of fatty tissue in and around the individual's liver has steadily increased over time and indicate the associated risks), oblique position of the spine, hip obliquity ([0195], e.g., the second MR scan the system may look in more detail for structural issues in the individual's hip and/or spine), and thyroid problems. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, upon further consideration, anew grounds of rejection are made in view of Trikha et. al, or, in the alternative, in further view of Kaditz et al. As to the dependent claims, these claims remain rejected by their dependency to the independent claims.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC § 103.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “compare first data captured by a user device to second data captured by a security scanner”, “authenticate the user of the user device, if the first data matches the second data”, “transmit additional data”, and “selected” in claim 1, “process the first data” in claim 3, “assess whether the second data is captured by a security scanner” in claim 9, “only use second data for comparison” in claim 10, “store the second data” in claim 12, “capture the additional data” in claim 13, “increase the resolution” in claim 14, “detect a medical anomaly based on the second data” in claim 15, “compare first data captured by a user device to second data captured by a security scanner”, “authenticate the user of the user device, if the first data matches the second data” and “selected” in claim 17.
The claim elements in claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph would be interpreted as:
A device for authenticating a user, configured to compare first data captured by a user device to second data captured by a security scanner; and
device for authenticating a user, configured to authenticate the user of the user device, if the first data matches the second data;
device for authenticating a user, configured to authenticate the user of the user device, if the first data matches the second data;
The claim elements in claim 17 are interpreted similarly as above, since it is the method of claim 1 and recites “step” to be interpreted similarly.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-18 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.
The term “millimeter(mm) range and/or a centimeter(cm) range” in claim 1 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “millimeter(mm) range and/or a centimeter(cm) range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite.
The term “about a facial area” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about a facial area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It did not provide any indication as to what range of specific matter is covered by the term "about" and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite.
Respective dependent claims fall together accordingly.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-16, Claim limitations “device for authenticating a user”, “device …configured to…compare first data captured by a user device to second data captured by a security scanner”, “device configured to …authenticate the user of the user device, if the first data matches the second data”, “device configured to … process the first data”, “device configured to … transmit additional data”, “device configured to…wherein… selected from”, “device configured to … assess whether the second data is captured by a security scanner”, “device configured to … only use second data for comparison”, “device configured to …store the second data”, “device configured to … capture the additional data”, “device configured to … increase the resolution”, and “device configured to …detect a medical anomaly based on the second data”
And regarding claims 17-18, similarly the claim limitation uses the term “step” with functional language “…compare first data captured by a user device to second data captured by a security scanner”, “…authenticate the user of the user device, if the first data matches the second data”, “…transmitting, by the device, additional data to the user device”, “…wherein… selected from”, creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed functions of "compare first data... to second data", "authenticate user", "process first data", "transmit additional data", "selected from: thicker liver, oblique position of the spine, hip obliquity, and thyroid problems", "assess whether the second data is captured by a security scanner" and "only use second data for comparison" are performed by the device. The specification also states the claimed functions of "store the second data", "capture the additional data", and "increase the resolution" are performed by the security scanner. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform such functions.
The use of the term “device” is not adequate structure for performing the claimed functions because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Respective dependent claims fall together accordingly.
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 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-18 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 claim(s) contains 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.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 16 are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Respective dependent claims fall together accordingly.
Claim 11, further recites “cloud computing device”, the specification is devoid of adequate description of such “cloud computing”. The limitations in question do not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
In MPEP 2163 (I)(A), while “There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed”, it also states “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehgal et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200293753 A1 (hereinafter Sehgal), in view in view of Trikha et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20230152652 A1 (hereinafter Trikha), or alternatively further in view of Kaditz et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20170007148 A1 (hereinafter Kaditz).
Regarding claim 1, Sehgal discloses a device ([0026], e.g., electronic device) for authenticating a user ([0026], e.g., authorize a user), configured to:
compare first data ([0118], e.g., camera input) captured by a user device ([0118], e.g., camera) to second data ([0118], e.g., radar input) captured by a security scanner ([0118], e.g., radar transceiver); and
authenticate the user of the user device ([0127], e.g., grant the request for authentication and accept the user), if the first data matches the second data ([0127], e.g., comparing the match score); and
transmit additional data to the user device, if the user is authenticated successfully ([0025]-[0026], e.g., authenticate the user prior providing the information to the user; confidential or personal information);
wherein the second data is captured by the security scanner by means of electromagnetic radiation ([0052], e.g., radar) with a wavelength in a millimeter(mm) range and/or a centimeter(cm) range ([0052], e.g., millimeter wave);
wherein the first data comprises visual information of the user ([0030], e.g., the image data represent the face of the user) of the user device;
and wherein the second data comprises biometrical information ([0030], e.g., extract reflection signatures from the users face).
Sehgal specifically teach the ability to transmit “personal or confidential information, i.e. data, and while does not explicitly disclose the additional data comprises information regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user, particular non-functional descriptive material information are mere data, (see MPEP 2111.05), any specific information about the user simply corresponds to non-functional relationship.
However, in the alternative Trikha teaches transmit additional data to the user device ([0117], e.g., transmission may be to an individual and/or to a user), if the user is authenticated successfully ([0143], e.g., employee is authorized); wherein the additional data comprises information regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user ([0143], e.g., If the bodily characteristic(s) are found to be abnormal, then the employee is notified).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Sehgal to include teaching of Trikha to transmit additional data to the user, where the additional data comprises medical information about the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to expand the used cases for the device to raise awareness of the individual about their own health, and to prevent proactively potential harm that a diseased person may inflict on others, as suggested by Trikha (see [0002]).
Regarding the limitation “the information regarding the medical anomaly includes information regarding at least one selected from: thicker liver, oblique position of the spine, hip obliquity, and thyroid problems”, the limitation is determined to have no weight in the claim. According to the specification these are just merely examples of non-functional descriptive material, “The information 207 regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user 101 may include at least one of: thicker liver; oblique position of the spine; hip obliquity; thyroid problems. These are however just examples to illustrated the function of the device. The information 207 regarding a medical anomaly of the body of the user 101 may comprise any information regarding a disease that is detectable by means of electromagnetic waves.” The stated information are mere data, and therefore leads to non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP 2111.05), “the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. Since the limitation is merely non-functional descriptive material, it is determined it has no weight on the claim.
Alternatively, any difference would be obvious as evidenced by Kaditz.
Kaditz discloses the information regarding the medical anomaly includes information regarding at least one selected from: thicker liver ([0203], e.g., the system may report that the amount of fatty tissue in and around the individual's liver has steadily increased over time and indicate the associated risks), oblique position of the spine, hip obliquity ([0195], e.g., the second MR scan the system may look in more detail for structural issues in the individual's hip and/or spine), and thyroid problems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Sehgal and Trikha to include teaching of Kaditz to include more specific medical information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a more specific result to the user and keep them informed.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Sehgal further discloses the first data comprises a picture of the user ([0028], e.g., an image of particular biometric characteristic of the user).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Sehgal further discloses the first data comprises biometrical information ([0028], e.g., an image of particular biometric characteristic of the user), or wherein the device is configured to process the first data to obtain biometrical information ([0118], e.g., camera input is generated by assigning a weight to the facial image data).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Sehgal further discloses the first data ([0030], e.g., the image data represent the face of the user) and the second data ([0030], e.g., extract reflection signatures from the users face) comprise information about a facial area of the user.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Sehgal further discloses the additional data comprises information regarding the size of a body part of the user ([0073], e.g., different depths of the face of the user).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Sehgal further discloses the additional data comprises a normalized confection size ([0051], e.g., meter a physical quantity).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Trikha further discloses the first data further comprises unique information regarding the security scanner ([0119], e.g., the communication device may be communicatively coupled to a network (e.g., network infrastructure) of the facility in which the enclosure is disposed) and wherein the device is further configured to assess whether the second data is captured by a security scanner which corresponds to the unique information ([0115], e.g., the network infrastructure is operatively coupled to one or more sensors disposed in the enclosure).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. The combination of Sehgal and Trikha further discloses the first data comprises additional identification data (Sehgal, [0028], e.g., It is noted that an object or other body parts of the user can be used for authentication purposes) in the form of:
a time stamp indicating when the user went through the security scanner (Trikha, [0176], e.g., data of the sensor may have a time indicator (e.g., may be time stamped)); and/or
identification information of the user (Trikha, [0143], e.g., the employee has a tag in operation), preferably captured by a reader in the area of the security scanner (Trikha, [0143], e.g., by scanning and/or sensing an identification of the employee using the tag); and
wherein the device is configured to only use second data for comparison (Sehgal, [0186], e.g., the camera or the radar transceiver is disabled, such that the authenticating engine receives only the facial image data or the facial signature data), which corresponds to the time stamp and/or the identification information.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Trikha further discloses the device is a cloud computing device ([0187], e.g., in a network for a facility and/or a cloud-based server).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 1. Trikha further discloses a security scanner ([0119], e.g., testing platform), wherein the security scanner is configured to store the second data, and the additional data, in a database ([0185], e.g., The organized data can be stored in a personal database and/or a collective database).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 12. Trikha further discloses the security scanner is configured to capture the additional data ([0114], e.g., testing system then senses (e.g., using sensor(s)) whether the bodily characteristic(s) of the visitor are within normal range or are abnormal in operation) if a control signal is provided to the security scanner ([0114], e.g., the doors and the visitor either enters the facility directly in or is directed to the equipment dispensing operation).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 12. Trikha further discloses the security scanner is configured to increase a resolution ([0151], e.g., the accuracy and/or resolution of a sensor may be improved) if a control signal is present ([0152], e.g., controller is communicatively linked with sensors).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 12. Trikha further discloses an artificial intelligence, AI ([0186], learning module (e.g., artificial intelligence comprising machine learning)), module configured to detect a medical anomaly ([0186], e.g., analysis module makes a determination whether sufficient data is stored in order to identify a relevant normal for the sensed characteristic that can be used for a comparison) based on the second data.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sehgal and Trikha discloses the device of claim 12. Sehgal further discloses the user device in form of at least one of: a mobile phone; a laptop computer; a tablet device; a computer comprising a camera ([0024], e.g., a portable communication device (such as a smartphone or mobile phone), a laptop, a tablet, an electronic book reader (such as an e-reader), a personal digital assistants (PDAs), portable multimedia players (PMPs), MP3 players, mobile medical devices, virtual reality headsets, portable game consoles, cameras, and wearable devices, among others).
Method and computer program claims 17 and 18 are drawn to the method/computer program corresponding to the device of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore method/ computer program claims 17 and 18 correspond to device claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above (see Sehgal, [0007] and [0011]; Trikha, [0009] and [0011]; Kaditz, [0022] and [0023]).
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 ZIXUAN WENG whose telephone number is (571)272-7069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30-5:30pm, 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. 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.
/ZIXUAN WENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2496