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 view of the Appeal Brief filed on 8/11/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see pages 13, 15-19 of the Appeal Brief filed 8/11/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 112(a) has been fully considered and asserted persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, see pages 13, 19-26 of the Appeal Brief filed 8/11/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 over prior arts of records has been fully considered and asserted persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 USC 103 over prior arts of records has been withdrawn. However, upon review and updated search, new prior arts are found to teach the claimed invention. A new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 22, “in response to the determination that …” may read “in response to a determination that …”. Examiner notes, examiner previously suggests applicant to add “the” before “determining”, since “the determining” is referring to “determining, by the computer system that …”, satisfying antecedent basis. In claim language, “determination” has different meaning from “determining”. “determining” is referring to the action of “determine”, whereas “determination” could mean result of “determine” or “determining”. Above concern also apply to “the determination” recited in lines 28-29.
Similarly claim 17 and claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 17, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea et al (US9846769B1, hereinafter, “Hosea”), in view of Traywick et al (US20240244048A1, hereinafter, “Traywick”), further in view of Tussy (US20230031087A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Tussy”).
Regarding claim 1, Hosea teaches:
A biometric authentication system (Hosea, discloses computing device and method for authenticating a user on a remote computing device based on biometric input, see [Abstract]) comprising: a [registered] biometric device (e.g., Fig. 1, Biometric Device of Client which is a remote computing device of Hosea); and a computer system (e.g., Fig. 1, Authentication Module of Host) remotely located to and in communication with the [registered] biometric device (Hosea’s computing device, i.e., the computer system, is communicating with the remote computing device) (see Traywick below for teachings of limitation in brackets above), the computer system comprising a processor and memory storing program instructions (Fig. 8, Processor(s) and Memory), the program instructions configured to cause the processor to perform steps comprising:
and in an access granting phase: receiving, by the computer system, biometric device identification information from the registered biometric device in response to the registered biometric device receiving a request from the registered user to access a resource associated with the computer system (Refer to Fig. 3, at 302, [Col. 6 lines 53-54] The host 102 may receive 302 a request for access to data or a service (i.e., resource) from the client 112. And Fig. 3 at 308, [Col. 6 lines 62-67] For example, the host 102 may request information regarding biometric devices 114 on the client 112. This information may be used by the host 102 to perform a biometric authentication challenge. For example, the host 102 may obtain 308 information from the client 112 regarding a fingerprint scanning biometric device 114), wherein the resource is not the registered biometric device nor a resource in which the initial biometric data of the registered user is stored, and wherein the registered user does not currently have any access to the resource (Hosea in Fig. 1 shows the Biometric Device 114 is remotely communicating with the Host 102, in this case access to the host may be granted or denied based on the validation of the biometric input from user on the client 112);
While Hosea teaches the main concept of granting or denying access request for resource based on biometric input, but does not specifically teach a registration phase for registered biometric device and following, in the same field of endeavor Traywick teaches:
in a registration phase: assigning, by the computer system, identification information of the registered biometric device to a registered user (Traywick, discloses computing platform and method for dynamic passive authentication based on biometric data, see [Abstract]. e.g., [0007] The registration data may include biometric data of each user of the plurality of users, as well as identification of one or more user computing devices that each user is authorize to operate or access. Examiner notes, registration of user associated with user computing device with the Passive Authentication Computing Platform suggests assigning); and storing, on the computer system, initial biometric data of the registered user captured by the registered biometric device (Reference to Fig. 2A, and [0040] The registration data may include biometric data of each user (e.g., facial image, fingerprint, retinal scan, or the like), and [0041] At step 202, the registration data may be stored and a registration record may be generated. For instance, a database may be modified to include entries for each user for which registration data was received. Examiner notes, in this case Passive Authentication Computing Platform 110 is interpreted as the computer system);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Traywick in the authenticating remote computing device of Hosea by registration of biometric data of each user of users and identification of computing devices. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to compare user biometric data with registered user biometric data for user authentication (Traywick, [Abstract]).
The combination of Hosea and Traywick teaches obtaining information about the biometric device, but does not specifically teach matches the identification information of the registered biometric device as shown below, in the same field of endeavor Tussy teaches:
determining, by the computer system, that the received biometric device identification information matches the identification information of the registered biometric device assigned to the registered user (Tussy, discloses system and method for autonomously authenticating a user with biometric data, see [Abstract], [0006]. And [0094] Next, in step 516, the mobile device 112 may send device information to the authentication server 120. The device information may include among other information a device identifier that uniquely identifies the mobile device of the user. And [0121] As yet another advantage, as explained above, not only must the enrollment biometrics sufficiently correspond to the authentication biometrics, but also the enrollment movement must match the authentication movement, and the device information must match the enrollment (i.e., registered) device information);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Tussy in the authenticating remote computing device of Hosea-Traywick by matching device information with enrollment device information. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authenticate and validate users with user device associated with the user (Tussy, [Abstract], [0004-0006]).
The combination of Hosea and Tussy further teaches: in response to the determination that the received biometric device identification information matches the identification information of the registered biometric device assigned to the registered user, instructing the registered biometric device to capture current biometric data of the registered user (Tussy teaches device information must match the enrollment device information as shown above. And Fig. 9 at 920 to 930. And Hosea teaches obtain information regarding the biometric device on the client, then use utility to obtain biometric input from user (Fig 2 at 204-212) for user authentication);
Hosea-Traywick-Tussy further teaches: determining that the captured current biometric data of the registered user matches the initial biometric data of the registered user (Hosea, e.g., Fig. 2 at 214, and [Col. 6 lines 47-48] At the host 102, the biometric input 212 may be validated 214. And Traywick, Fig. 2C at 214, and [0052] At step 214, the first biometric data may be compared to the biometric data received at registration for an identified user. And Tussy, e.g., Fig. 9 at 930, [0108] In step 930, the authentication biometrics may be compared with the enrollment biometrics to determine whether they sufficiently correspond with the enrollment biometrics);
Hosea further teaches: and granting the registered user access to the resource only after the determination that the captured current biometric data of the registered user matches matching the initial biometric data of the registered user (Hosea, [Abstract] The computing device furthermore validates the biometric input received. The computing device also grants or denies access to the remote computing device based on the validation of the biometric input. And [Col. 3 lines 44-46] Upon validation, the host may grant the client access to the network, network data and/or services. And [Col. 6 lines 47-50] At the host 102, the biometric input 212 may be validated 214. If the validation is successful the host 102 may grant 216 access based on a successful validation).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a method claim that encompasses limitations similar to those limitations of the system claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied against claim 1. In addition, Hosea teaches a biometric authentication method (Hosea, discloses computing device and method for authenticating a user on a remote computing device based on biometric input, see [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is a computer-readable medium claim that encompasses limitations similar to those limitations of the system claim 1. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied against claim 1. In addition, Hosea teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer code which, once executed by at least one processor (Hosea, discloses computing device and method for authenticating a user on a remote computing device based on biometric input, see [Abstract]. And Fig. 8, Processor(s) and Memory, and [Claim 16] a non-transitory computer-readable medium).
Regarding claim 3, similarly claim 19, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1, the method of claim 17,
Traywick further teaches: wherein the registered biometric device's identification information is one of a MAC address, a cryptographic hash, a universally unique identifier, an organizationally unique identifier, or a mobile equipment identifier (e.g., [0026] The registration data may include biometric data of each registered user …, as well as identification of one or more computing devices the user is authorized to use (e.g., based on unique identifier associated with each device)). Same motivation as presented in claim 1, 17 would apply.
Regarding claim 4, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1,
Hosea further teaches: wherein the computer system comprises a server (The host computing device. [Col. 5 lines 16-18] Examples of the host 102 … include desktop computers, laptop computers, servers…).
Claims 2, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy as applied above to claim 1, 17 respectively, further in view of Hunt (US20200112560A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Hunt”).
Regarding claim 2, similarly claim 18, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1, the method of claim 17,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Hunt teaches:
wherein the steps further comprise, in the registration phase: assigning login credentials to the registered user (Hunt, discloses methods and systems for user authentication and verification with credential-less user input, see [Abstract]. And [0014] For example, upon performing certain registration steps with the authentication system, a user's device will be established and recognized by the authentication system as a bonded or trusted device that is specific to the user. The system may rely upon an existing trusted credential for a one-time secure registration process of the device in order to establish the device as a bonded or trusted device); and in the access granting phase: receiving biometric device identification information from an unregistered biometric device; requesting the registered user to supply the login credentials (Hunt, [0017] In the event that the user is not yet registered (i.e., the user and/or computing device is not recognized), the user will need to register with the access management system services (a requirement in order to access the relying party resources). In one embodiment, the user may be invited to complete registration, in which the user may be prompted to provide certain information and credentials as part of the initial registration);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Hunt in the authenticating remote computing device of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by implementing user authentication with bonded and trusted user computing device with user secrets from biometric factor. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a secure and easy-to-use authentication system that relies on a single trusted device associated with a user (Hunt, [Abstract], [0013]).
Hosea further teaches: in response to receiving the login credentials, retrieving the initial biometric data stored on the computer system (Hosea, [Col. 4 lines 48-52] a biometric profile may be generated on the client. For example, a biometric profile may include user credentials and/or one or more biometric inputs. The biometric profile may be verified on the client computer or sent to the host to be verified); instructing the unregistered biometric device to capture current biometric data of the registered user; granting the registered user access to the resource based on the initial biometric data stored during the registration phase matching the current biometric data of the registered user captured by the unregistered biometric device (Hosea, the teachings of limitations of claim 1 of authentication phrase can be similarly applied to this situation after user logins and authentication with captured current biometric data as shown in claim 1).
Claims 5-8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Burton (US20110228989A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Burton”).
Regarding claim 5, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Burton teaches:
wherein the registration phase comprises generating an authentication sequence and registering the authentication sequence with the registered user, and wherein the registered biometric device captures the registered user's current biometric data in the access granting phase according to the authentication sequence (Burton, discloses method of authentication of a user using multi-parameter biometric data, see [Abstract]. And [0016] each biometric data has an associated qualification factor and the inventive method further includes the step of using the qualification factor associated with each of the received biometric data to determine if the qualification criteria have been satisfied. In one embodiment where the biometric data must be obtained sequentially, the sequence may be pre-defined based on the qualification factor associated with each biometric data to be received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Burton in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by implementing sequence of authentication with multi-parameter biometrics. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain the biometric data sequentially as pre-defined based on qualification factor associated with each biometric data to improve the security and accuracy of the authentication process (Burton, [Abstract], [0016], [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Burton teaches:
wherein the registration phase comprises generating multiple authentication sequences (Burton, discloses method of authentication of a user using multi-parameter biometric data, see [Abstract]. And [0042] Alternatively, it may be necessary for the user to provide the biometric data in a pre-defined sequence. A combination of simultaneous and consecutive inputs may also be required, to improve the security of the authentication process and effectiveness of the system. To further improve the accuracy of the system, the processor may be configured to prompt the user for required biometric parameters which are randomly selected from a larger set of biometric parameters for which there is corresponding authentic biometric data. This may further reduce the likelihood of a fraudulent user being falsely authenticated as the genuine user). Examiner further notes, it is obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art that the use of sequence authentication in Burton suggests the sequence of authentication is setup in the registration phase as taught by Traywick.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Burton in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by implementing sequence of authentication with multi-parameter biometrics. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain the biometric data sequentially as pre-defined based on qualification factor associated with each biometric data to improve the security and accuracy of the authentication process (Burton, [Abstract], [0016], [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Burton combination teaches the system of claim 6,
Burton further teaches: wherein the registered biometric device captures the registered user's current biometric data in the access granting phase according to an authentication sequence that is randomly selected from among the multiple authentication sequences (Burton, [0042] Alternatively, it may be necessary for the user to provide the biometric data in a pre-defined sequence. A combination of simultaneous and consecutive inputs may also be required, to improve the security of the authentication process and effectiveness of the system. To further improve the accuracy of the system, the processor may be configured to prompt the user for required biometric parameters which are randomly selected from a larger set of biometric parameters for which there is corresponding authentic biometric data. This may further reduce the likelihood of a fraudulent user being falsely authenticated as the genuine user). Same motivation as presented in claim 6 would apply.
Regarding claim 8, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Burton combination teaches the system of claim 6,
Burton further teaches: wherein the registered biometric device captures the registered user's current biometric data in the access granting phase according to an authentication sequence that is selected from among the multiple authentication sequences according to one or more authentication sequence selection criteria (Burton, [0043] Preferably, the qualification criteria are adjustable by an administrator or security access manager. And [0044] the processor may be configured to adjust the qualification criteria automatically, based on, say, the biometric data which is received from the user…, if high accuracy biometric data such as an iris scan is received is a 98% match with that of the genuine-user, the qualification criteria may only require verification of one further biometric data to authenticate the user's identity, whereas after receipt of signature biometric data, which is less reliable, the qualification criteria may require 2, 3 or 4 more forms of biometric data to be provided and verified before the user's identity can be authenticated. It is also desirable for the processor to be configurable to require the biometric data in a particular pre-defined sequence, based on a qualification factor associated with each of the biometric data). Same motivation as presented in claim 6 would apply.
Regarding claim 14, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Burton teaches:
wherein the registration phase comprises generating an authentication sequence, and wherein the authentication sequence requires capture of biometric iris data and a word or phrase that is captured with a microphone (Burton, discloses method of authentication of a user using multi-parameter biometric data, see [Abstract]. And [0013] Any combination or available biometric data may be used such as eye biometric data relating to the iris and relating to a blink rate response, for example, plus hand geometry, voice pattern or other biometric data. And [0016] In one embodiment, each biometric data has an associated qualification factor and the inventive method further includes the step of using the qualification factor associated with each of the received biometric data to determine if the qualification criteria have been satisfied. In one embodiment where the biometric data must be obtained sequentially, the sequence may be pre-defined based on the qualification factor associated with each biometric data to be received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Burton in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by implementing sequence of authentication with multi-parameter biometrics. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain the biometric data sequentially as pre-defined based on qualification factor associated with each biometric data to improve the security and accuracy of the authentication process (Burton, [Abstract], [0016], [0042]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Burton as applied above to claim 8, further in view of McCarty et al (US20210110015A1-IDS, hereinafter, “McCarty”).
Regarding claim 9, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Burton combination teaches the system of claim 8,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Burton does not teach the following, in the same field of endeavor McCarty teaches:
wherein the one or more authentication sequence selection criteria comprise time elapsed between a previous and current access request, available biometric devices, the resource to be accessed, or a combination thereof (McCarty, discloses methods and systems for authenticating users based on a sequence of biometric authentication challenges, see [Abstract]. And [0086] A sequence of biometric authentication challenges is identified (402). The sequence can be selected from a set of biometric authentication challenges that includes one or more facial expression challenges, one or more fingerprint challenges, and/or one or more voice challenges. For example, a specified number of biometric authentication challenges can be selected, e.g., randomly or pseudo-randomly. In another example, the same sequence can be used for a particular user each time the user is authenticated. That is, the sequences can be user-specific and remain the same over time. The user, or the authentication application, can change the sequence for the user periodically).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of McCarty in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Burton by selecting authentication sequence from set of biometric challenges. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authenticate users based on a sequence of biometric challenges with correct order to prevent false authentication (McCarty, [Abstract], [0002]).
Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy as applied above to claim 1, 17 respectively, further in view of Nakamura et al (US20220121734A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 10, similarly claim 20, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1, the method of claim 17,
While Traywick teaches wherein the registered biometric device is an image capturing device (Traywick, [0020] As discussed more fully herein, users may provide biometric data during a registration process. The biometric data may include facial images, …), but the combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Nakamura teaches:
and wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to perform a facial image updating sequence comprising: in response to detecting a registered image capturing device linked to the registered user, instructing the biometric device to capture an image of a face of the registered user; comparing the captured image of the face of the registered user with one or more previously stored images of the face of the registered user; and in response to a difference being found, replacing the one or more previously stored images with the captured image (Nakamura, discloses system and method for face authentication, see [Abstract]. And [0407] For example, when a user is newly registered or updated, the face information manager 66 copies the face feature amount data in each individual. To give another example, in order to improve the accuracy of face matching for a certain user, additional face feature amount data may be generated from data of a different face image so that a plurality of face feature amount data sets are register for the same user. In this case, the face information manager 66 copies the individual face feature amount data only for a specific user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Nakamura in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by using face image as biometric data for authentication. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to update user face image to improve accuracy of face matching for a user (Nakamura, [Abstract], [0407]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura as applied above to claim 10, further in view of Azar et al (US20130167212A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Azar”).
Regarding claim 11, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura combination teaches the system of claim 10,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Azar teaches:
wherein the facial image updating sequence is triggered in response to a time period between a current login and a previous login being greater than a threshold (Azar, discloses system and method for providing secure authorization using both screen gesture and facial biometrics, see [Abstract]. And [0033] FIG. 4 is a flow chart diagram illustrating the process for populating the database together with a back timer process 400 that can be used to improve the quality of the vectors in the database. The automatic database is a process by which the system database will be created or updated while a user uses the system and enters a password, or a database match occurred after the user alert timer expired. Although a password may initially be required, an objective of the automatic database is to permit the data to be populated through actual use rather than a specific enrollment procedure, whereby a user can eventually stop using password authentication and the method of the invention can be employed to authenticate using facial biometric data. By updating the database whenever it has taken too long a period of time for the database matching, the quality of the database is improved and the amount of time for subsequent database matches decreases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Azar in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura by updating database in user authentication with facial biometric data. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the quality of database and decrease the amount of time of subsequent database matches (Azar, [Abstract], [0033]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura as applied above to claim 10, further in view of S et al (US20240104180A1, hereinafter, “S”).
Regarding claim 12, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura combination teaches the system of claim 10,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor S teaches:
wherein the image capturing device is a depth camera capturing 3D face scans (S, discloses user authentication based on 3D face modeling, see [Abstract] An encoder neural network can be used to generate one or more predicted three-dimensional (3D) facial modeling parameters, wherein the encoder neural network generates the one or more predicted 3D facial modeling parameters based on the plurality of images. A reference 3D facial model associated with the face and the facial expression can be obtained).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of S in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura by authenticating user with 3D modelling. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authenticate user with 3D facial modeling parameter with less than anticipated error (S, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 13, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Nakamura-S combination teaches the system of claim 12,
S further teaches: wherein the 3D face scans are captured by obtaining depth information that is converted into 3D meshes that are sent for reconstruction at the computer system (S, [0036] Performing 3D object reconstruction (e.g., to generate a 3D model of an object, such as a face model) from one or more images can be challenging. Using a face as an illustrative example of a 3D object, 3D face reconstruction can be difficult based on the need to reconstruct the face geometry (e.g., shape) and the facial expression. And [0081] In some aspects, the 3D facial model 552 generated or reconstructed based on the shape and expression coefficients 524 may also be referred to as a predicted 3D mesh, a predicted 3D face model, and/or a predicted 3D facial model. See Fig. 4, 3D Modeling System, i.e., the remote computer system). Same motivation as presented in claim 12 would apply.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Kisters (US20110247058A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Kisters”).
Regarding claim 15, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the system of claim 1,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Kisters teaches:
wherein the registration phase comprises generating an authentication sequence, and wherein the authentication sequence includes a consciousness detection step (Kisters, discloses system and method for query-based personal identification for authentication checking, see [Abstract]. And [0039] In order to expand the possibilities for authentication of persons and/or in order to increase the security of such authentication, it is advantageous for a conscious behavior pattern to be recorded as a personal reference characteristic, in that a specific sequence of operational actions is captured on the detecting device. And [0060] The detecting device 2 can also have an audiovisual input/output device 13, in order to be able to detect an unconscious and/or a conscious user behavior as a personal identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Kisters in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by detecting conscious behavior pattern recorded as personal reference characteristics for authentication. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the security of authentication (Kisters, [Abstract], [0039]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy- Kisters as applied above to claim 15, further in view of Visconti (US20210369161A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Visconti”).
Regarding claim 16, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Kisters combination teaches the system of claim 15,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Kisters does not specifically teach, in the similar field of endeavor Visconti teaches:
wherein the consciousness detection step comprises using an iris scanner to determine whether a light source causes a pupil to constrict (Visconti, discloses system and method for detecting and continuously monitoring Pupillary Light Reflex responses and neurological conditions to determine probability and degree of impairment to a user, see [Abstract]. And [0035] Referring to FIG. 2A, it is shown that a constriction in pupil size reaches a maximum amplitude following a brief latency period a maximum constriction time, that is the time required for a particular individual's pupil to constrict following exposure to a high intensity light stimuli when unimpaired… It is noted that latency, maximum constriction time, and dilation time for an unimpaired individual can vary from individual to individual due to age, health status, state of consciousness…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Visconti in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Kisters by detecting consciousness of user by measuring constriction of user eye against light intensity. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to predict a degree of impairment of the user as detection of neurological condition of a user (Visconti, [Abstract], [0009]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosea-Traywick-Tussy as applied above to claim 17, further in view of Kisters (US20110247058A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Kisters”) and Visconti (US20210369161A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Visconti”).
Regarding claim 21, Hosea-Traywick-Tussy combination teaches the method of claim 17,
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Kisters teaches:
wherein the registration phase comprises generating an authentication sequence, and wherein the authentication sequence includes a consciousness detection step (Kisters, discloses system and method for query-based personal identification for authentication checking, see [Abstract]. And [0039] In order to expand the possibilities for authentication of persons and/or in order to increase the security of such authentication, it is advantageous for a conscious behavior pattern to be recorded as a personal reference characteristic, in that a specific sequence of operational actions is captured on the detecting device. And [0060] The detecting device 2 can also have an audiovisual input/output device 13, in order to be able to detect an unconscious and/or a conscious user behavior as a personal identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Kisters in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy by detecting conscious behavior pattern recorded as personal reference characteristics for authentication. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the security of authentication (Kisters, [Abstract], [0039]).
The combination of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Kisters does not specifically teach, in the similar field of endeavor Visconti teaches:
[consciousness detection step] comprising using an iris scanner to determine whether a light source causes a pupil to constrict (Visconti, discloses system and method for detecting and continuously monitoring Pupillary Light Reflex responses and neurological conditions to determine probability and degree of impairment to a user, see [Abstract]. And [0035] Referring to FIG. 2A, it is shown that a constriction in pupil size reaches a maximum amplitude following a brief latency period a maximum constriction time, that is the time required for a particular individual's pupil to constrict following exposure to a high intensity light stimuli when unimpaired… It is noted that latency, maximum constriction time, and dilation time for an unimpaired individual can vary from individual to individual due to age, health status, state of consciousness…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Visconti in the dynamic passive authentication of Hosea-Traywick-Tussy-Kisters by detecting consciousness of user by measuring constriction of user eye against light intensity. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to predict a degree of impairment of the user as detection of neurological condition of a user (Visconti, [Abstract], [0009]).
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been relied upon for this office action:
Avetisov et al (US20210044976A1) discloses method mobile-initiated authentications to web services.
Tussy (US10698995B2) discloses systems and methods or authenticating a user in an authentication system using a computing device configured to capture authentication biometric identity information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
