DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1, and 3-7 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berko et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0388313) in view of Vogel (Patent No. US 9,517,402) further in view of Nocon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0100280) and further in view of JOHNSON, JR. et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0034411).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Berko teaches calculating, based on a first data group (data collection) in which data indicating a plurality of types/characteristics of behaviors (previously classified activities) of each of a plurality of people (grouped users) is registered, reference behavior data (behavior signature of the previously classified activities) indicating a reference behavior among the plurality of people (people in the group) about each of the plurality of types/characteristics of behaviors (previously classified activities) [Para. 25, 47, 14, and 49]; acquiring, from the first data group, first behavior data (user’s behavior signature) indicating a behavior of a first person among the plurality of people about the each of the plurality of types [Para. 48]; calculating a difference between the first behavior data and the reference behavior data about the each of the plurality of types [Para. 50-52]; determining, from the plurality of types, at least one first type which has the difference equal to or greater than a first threshold [Para. 50-52]; and registering/re-assigning second behavior data indicating a behavior of the first person about each of the at least one first type in a second data group [Para. 25]; extracting third behavior data (user’s feature) indicating a behavior of a second person [Para. 36 “DoV is determined by calculating the DoV between the user signature and all other users within that group” and 48]; determining whether the second person is identical with the all users within that group based on a result of a comparison [Para. 36, and 48].
However, Berko doesn’t explicitly teach extracting third behavior data indicating a behavior of a second person/player from an input image; and
determining whether the second person is identical with the first person based on a result of a comparison between the third behavior data and the second behavior data.
Vogel teaches extracting third behavior data indicating a behavior of a second person/player from an input image (video game) [Col. 9 lines 6-11, since the claim doesn’t explicitly teach how the image is used, the video game reads on the claim limitation]; and determining whether the second person is identical with the first person (correlation) based on a result of a comparison between the third behavior data and the second behavior data (unique identifier/fingerprint) [Col. 9 lines 11-49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Berko to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Vogel; because the modification enables the system to uniquely identify players in a video game and use the information to accurately authenticate the player to address fraud and other situations involving an unauthorized player and/or improper player activity.
However, Berko in view of Vogel doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Nocon teaches determining, from the plurality of types (types or gestures), at least one second type (gesture) whose variation range (variance) among the first behavior data acquired in plurality is equal to or less than a second threshold (threshold of maximum acceptable variability) [Para. 92, 96, and 98] and calculating a difference (fit) between the first behavior data (gesture signature) and the reference behavior data (parameters) about the each of the plurality of types (gesture type) [Para. 101 and 102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Berko in view of Vogel to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Nocon; because the modification enables the system to solve false identity/impersonation determinations by selecting and comparing only those behavior types that are both repeatable for the authentic person rather than suing common behaviors that many people perform similarly.
Berko in view of Vogel further in view of Nocon doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
JOHNSON teaches determining, from the at least one second type (factor), at least one first type (anomalous) which has the difference equal to or greater than a first threshold (threshold deviance) and registering (stored) second behavior data/measure indicating a behavior of the first person (user) about each of the at least one first type in a second data group (data store) [Para. 36 “A factor for the user may be compared to an aggregate factor measure of a group of users of the conversational system in order to generate the behavior measure. As a result, a behavior measure may indicate a user's deviation from a larger group with respect to one or more factors.”, also see Para. 45, 46, fig. 1 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Berko in view of Vogel further in view of Nocon to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Vogel; because the modification enables the system to improve the accuracy of determining whether a person in an image is authentic by comparing only that person’s distinctive behaviors instead of comparing many common behaviors that lots of people perform similarly.
Regarding claim 3, Berko teaches wherein the reference behavior data about one type of the plurality of types/characteristics is calculated as an average value of data that is registered in the first data group and indicates the one type of behavior of the each of the plurality of people [para. 36, fig. 1-2 and related description].
Regarding claim 4, Berko in view of Vogel teaches all claim limitation as above. Furthermore, Vogel teaches wherein the determining of whether the second person is identical with the first person includes determining that the second person is different from the first person when no behavior (no correlation) of the at least one first type is detected from the input image [fig. 3 and related description].
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Furthermore, Berko teaches a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and the processor [fig. 3 and related description].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berko et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0388313) in view of Vogel (Patent No. US 9,517,402) further in view of Nocon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0100280) and further in view of JOHNSON, JR. et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0034411) and further in view of Van Hoecke et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0217793).
Regarding claims 5, Berko in view of Vogel further in view of Nocon and further in view of JOHNSON doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Van teaches wherein the process further includes outputting instruction information that instructs the second person to exhibit a behavior of the at least one first type, and the third behavior data is extracted from the input image that is captured after the outputting of the instruction information [46, 51, and fig. 5-6 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Berko in view of Vogel further in view of Nocon and further in view of JOHNSON to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Van; because the modification enables the user to save resources by identifying efficient way of performing a task.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666