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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus, a method, and a CRM to generate an indication whether fingerprint information and attribute information are derived from the same person. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an apparatus, a method, and a CRM respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES
The claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10: the claims recite the steps (functions) of:
generate first information indicating a likelihood that a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information are derived from a same person, by using the partial fingerprint information and the attribute information (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind, a person can compare fingerprint information and attribute information to enrollment information and determine if they match or not).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could a person can compare fingerprint information and attribute information to enrollment information and determine if they match or not either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 recite(s) the further limitations of:
acquire a plurality of pieces of partial fingerprint information, and attribute information of a person from whom each of a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information is derived (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data).
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the further limitations of:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor (generic computers or components configured to perform the steps);
Claim(s) 10 recite(s) the further limitations of:
a non-transitory storage medium storing a program (generic computers or components configured to perform the steps).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to acquire and generate, as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-8, and 12-20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) fall under the category of (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating/gathering data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deutschmann (US 20150358317).
Regarding claim 1:
Deutschmann discloses: a fingerprint information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor (FIG. 5) configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire a plurality of pieces of partial fingerprint information (¶ [0024] “…retrieving at least one additional, at least partial image of the user's fingerprints from the fingerprint sensor during the swipe of the finger”), and
attribute information of a person from whom each of a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information is derived (¶ [0023] “…gathering biometric and behavioral input data relating to the current user's interactions with the computing device, wherein the behavioral data is gathered from a swipe fingerprint sensor”; ¶ [0026] “…determining the direction in which the finger of the user was swiped over the fingerprint sensor; ¶ [0027] “determining the center of gravity of the fingerprint swipe”; ¶ [0028] “determining the position of the fingerprint swipe relative to the fingerprint sensor”; and ¶ [0029] “determining the pressure applied by the finger during the fingerprint swipe”; and b) based on the gathered biometric and behavioral input data, building a behavioral profile of the user when using the fingerprint sensor.”); and
generate first information indicating a likelihood that a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information are derived from a same person, by using the partial fingerprint information and the attribute information (¶ [0016] “…e) comparing a biometric data sample and a behavioral input data sample obtained during a current session of use of the computing device to biometric and behavioral input data from the user profile and f) generating a response based on results of the comparison, wherein the response is an authentication of the user when the biometric data and behavioral input data of the current session match the user profile”).
Regarding claim 2:
Deutschmann further discloses: wherein the attribute information indicates at least one of a physical feature and a behavioral feature (¶ [0023] “…gathering biometric and behavioral input data relating to the current user's interactions with the computing device, wherein the behavioral data is gathered from a swipe fingerprint sensor”; ¶ [0026] “…determining the direction in which the finger of the user was swiped over the fingerprint sensor; ¶ [0027] “determining the center of gravity of the fingerprint swipe”; ¶ [0028] “determining the position of the fingerprint swipe relative to the fingerprint sensor”; and ¶ [0029] “determining the pressure applied by the finger during the fingerprint swipe”; and b) based on the gathered biometric and behavioral input data, building a behavioral profile of the user when using the fingerprint sensor.”).
Regarding claim 3:
Deutschmann further discloses: wherein the attribute information indicates at least one of information relating to a place where the partial fingerprint information is collected, information detected at a place where the partial fingerprint information is collected, and information relating to an incident where the partial fingerprint information is collected (¶ [0078] “Behavioral input data,” for purposes of this specification, is defined as data observed and/or recorded during user interaction with user input component(s) of one or more computing devices. Such data may include the manner in which the user holds and orients a mobile computing device. The data may further include electronic input observations such as keystroke patterns and style, use of particular applications, and touches on the touchpad and time stamps thereof. The data may further include the time of day at which the computing device is used, a location at which the computing device is used as determined by a positioning system such as a Global Positioning System (GPS), an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the device, a network status of the device, visibility of wireless local area networks (WLAN/Wi-Fi) in the vicinity of the device, gyroscopic measurements of a mobile device when held by the user, accelerometer measurements of a mobile device when held by the user, gestures drawn on a touch pad of the device, pressure applied to the touch pad of the device, electrical current drawn by the fingerprint sensor, directions in which the finger of the user was swiped over the fingerprint sensor, characteristics of the user tapping on the fingerprint sensor, pressure applied by the finger to the fingerprint sensor when the fingerprint is acquired, and/or the center of pressure of the fingerprint, when the fingerprint was acquired”).
Regarding claim 5:
Deutschmann further discloses: compute a fingerprint score indicating a degree of similarity between a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information, and an attribute score indicating a degree of similarity between a plurality of pieces of the attribute information; and generate the first information, based on the fingerprint score and the attribute score (¶ [0047], ¶ [0063], ¶ [0076] “…the security classification may be correlated to a degree or an extent to which the biometric and behavioral data match the profile data. Thus, the closer the match, the higher the generated security classification, and the higher the security clearance that will be received. Still further, the security classification may be signed at the network node”, and ¶ 0109] “…The matching of the biometric and behavioral data to profiles in the database may be carried out using traditional statistic algorithms, or using other available algorithms like Support Vector Machine (SVM) or Bayes nets or any other suitable algorithms. Thresholds on the similarity of the profile and the provided biometric and behavioral information may be used to drive this decision”).
Regarding claims 9-10, 11-12, 16-17, 14 and 19: the claims limitations are similar to those of claims 1, 2, and 3, and 5, respectively; therefore, rejected in the same manner a applied above.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutschmann (US 20150358317) in view of Birdwell (US 20120148115).
Regarding claim 4:
Deutschmann discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Deutschmann does not specifically teach: wherein the attribute information indicates at least one of a blood type, a DNA type, gender, an age group, and a height.
However, in a related field, Birdwell teaches: abstract: a method of collecting biometric data at an accident or crime scene may comprise, for example, utilizing a camera to photograph the accident scene, collecting key entered data that may not be otherwise obtainable, using a fingerprint scanner to collect, digitize and store fingerprint data, using a lab-on-a-chip DNA profile device for collecting and analyzing a DNA specimen and generating identification and DNA profile data for bar code entry and other means for collecting any known form of biometric data including, but not limited to, vascular facial structure, dental structure, cornea, iris or other data which may be unique or limiting for identification purposes.
wherein the attribute information indicates at least one of a blood type, a DNA type, gender, an age group, and a height (¶ [0011] “Once actuated, one embodiment of a biometric mobile device may comprises a touch display screen for showing a plurality of potential applications such as collection of DNA profile data”; ¶ [0023] “…whereby collected profile data may be indicated by graphics or icons with shading or color to indicate the type of collected profile data, which may be DNA profile data, any other type of biometric data such as the sex, weight, height, age, or birthday of the individual, or one or more fingerprints, an iris image, skin, hair, or eye color, or any other measurement that describes a measurable attribute of a person, animal, body, body part, or remain.”; ¶ [0025] “…For example, a clear fingerprint and DNA profile data are among data that are usable forensic data that may uniquely identify an individual”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deutschmann to incorporate the teachings of Birdwell by including: wherein the attribute information indicates at least one of a blood type, a DNA type, gender, an age group, and a height in order to be provided with a biometric mobile device capable of collecting biometric data for a given human to identify or validate the identity of the individual.
Regarding claims 13 and 18: the claims limitations are similar to those of claim 4; therefore, rejected in the same manner a applied above.
Claim(s) 6-8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutschmann (US 20150358317) in view of Chang (US 20190163951).
Regarding claim 6:
Deutschmann discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Deutschmann further discloses: output the first information toward an operator (¶ [0044] “generating a security classification; and ¶ [0045] “providing the security classification to the computing device, such that the security classification dictates accessibility to certain features on the computing device”);
Deutschmann does not specifically teach: output a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information toward an operator, and after the output, receive an input of combining a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information from an operator; and combine a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information that receives an input of combination, and generate combined fingerprint information.
However, in a related field, Chang teaches: output a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information toward an operator, and after the output, receive an input of combining a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information from an operator; and combine a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information that receives an input of combination, and generate combined fingerprint information (FIGS. 6 and 7; ¶ [0031] “…if it is determined that the similarity between the to-be-authenticated fingerprint information and the enrolled fingerprint information conforms to the default condition, the processor 13 further updates the enrolled fingerprint information according to the successfully authenticated fingerprint information (i.e., the authenticated fingerprint information)”; ¶ [0032] “…and combines the enrolled fingerprint image 51 and the remaining fingerprint image in the authenticated fingerprint image 41 (i.e., the unfiltered fingerprint image in the authenticated fingerprint image 41) to form a fingerprint image similar to the superimposed image 61. Moreover, in a combination operation of fingerprint images, the processor 13 may also perform operations including edge smoothing, image filling, etc.,”; ¶ [0033] – ¶ [0035] “…the fingerprint image 73 is obtained by combining the fingerprint image 71 and the fingerprint image 72”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deutschmann to incorporate the teachings of Birdwell by including: output a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information toward an operator, and after the output, receive an input of combining a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information from an operator; and combine a plurality of pieces of the partial fingerprint information that receives an input of combination, and generate combined fingerprint information in order to achieve richer enrollment templates that improves subsequent matching.
Regarding claim 7:
Chang further teaches: combine a plurality of pieces of partial fingerprint information in which the first information satisfies a predetermined condition, and generate combined fingerprint information (FIGS. 6-8; ¶ [0031] “…if it is determined that the similarity between the to-be-authenticated fingerprint information and the enrolled fingerprint information conforms to the default condition, the processor 13 further updates the enrolled fingerprint information according to the successfully authenticated fingerprint information (i.e., the authenticated fingerprint information)”; ¶ [0033] – ¶ [0035] “…after the fingerprint authentication operation is successfully completed at least once, it is not required to re-perform the fingerprint enrollment operation, and the fingerprint information reflecting fingerprint at different positions on the same finger of the same user can be gradually collected and combined into new enrolled fingerprint information to enhance efficiency in performing the fingerprint authentication afterwards”).
Regarding claim 8:
Chang further teaches: collate the combined fingerprint information with registered fingerprint information (FIGS. 6-8; ¶ [0031] “…if it is determined that the similarity between the to-be-authenticated fingerprint information and the enrolled fingerprint information conforms to the default condition, the processor 13 further updates the enrolled fingerprint information according to the successfully authenticated fingerprint information (i.e., the authenticated fingerprint information)”; ¶ [0033] – ¶ [0035] “…after the fingerprint authentication operation is successfully completed at least once, it is not required to re-perform the fingerprint enrollment operation, and the fingerprint information reflecting fingerprint at different positions on the same finger of the same user can be gradually collected and combined into new enrolled fingerprint information to enhance efficiency in performing the fingerprint authentication afterwards”).
Regarding claims 15 and 20: the claims limitations are similar to those of claim 6; therefore, rejected in the same manner a applied above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665