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 June 14, 2023 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device of index is configured to computer at least one intermediate datum” and “a device of index is configured to determine the metric” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claims specify a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1-11 and 15-19 describe a method; Claim 12 describes a non-statutory computer-readable memory storing instructions that are executable by a computer; and Claims 13-14 describe a system.
Step 2 analysis for claims 1-11 and 15-19
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception recited?
Independent claim 1 recites of an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept that includes mathematical formulas and calculations. The abstract idea includes computing a metric of a difference between two datums in the form of a computed function having ranges and summation of results. The mathematical formulas and computations are broad enough wherein a user can collect various parameter information related to datums in order to obtain a predetermined type of outcome based upon a summing operation of results to obtain a value.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 15-19 describe further computations with respect to datum forming vectors of bits with various ranges, summing results, computations forming metrics, and results obtained from summing. Each of the limitations carry out the abstract idea of the mathematical formulas and computations, as specified in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception integrated into a practical application?
Independent claim 1 does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the claim recites of “computing…by way of the device”, “transmitting to the device”, and “determining by the device” are recited at a high level of generality failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of computer computations (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), can be done on any generic type of device performing conventional and routine operations on data by computation and determinations (see MPEP 2106.05(b), MPEP 2106.05(c), and MPEP 2106.05 (d)), and transmission using any type of device that fail to improve computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
Dependent claims describe “the device…computes”, “computing…by way of the device”, “transmitting the result…to the device”, “summing by way of the device”, “obtained summing…stored by the device”, “the device of index computes”, “the device of index obtains”, “acquiring by ways of a sensor”, “carrying out distributed processing computations on devices”, and “term stored by the device of index”. Accordingly, these elements of the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claims provide an invention concept?
Under step 2B, claims 1-11 and 15-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to a high level of generality failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of computer computations can be done on any generic type of device, performing conventional and routine operations on data by computation and determinations, and transmission using any type of device that fail to improve computer functionality.
For the above reasons, claims 1-11 and 15-19 are not patentably distinct.
Step 2 analysis for claim 12
Claim 12 contains limitations of a non-statutory computer-readable memory storing instructions that are executable by a computer, which are similar to the method specified in claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1; Step 2A, Prong 2; and Step 2B for claim 12 is similar to that presented above for claim 1.
In light of the above, the limitations of claim 12 recite and are directed to an abstract idea, and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claim 12 is therefore not patentably eligible.
Step 2 analysis for claim 13 and 14
Claims 13 and 14 contains a system, which are similar to the method specified in claims 1 and 10. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1; Step 2A, Prong 2; and Step 2B for claim 12 is similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 10.
In light of the above, the limitations of claims 13 and 17 recite and are directed to an abstract idea, and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 are therefore not patentably eligible.
Conclusion
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chabanne et al, U.S. Patent 10,880,298 is a related teaching by the applicant relied upon for disclosing of a client-terminal comprising a memory in which is stored a reference datum obtained by applying an encoding method to a reference biometric datum and a legitimate cryptographic key giving the possibility of authenticating the client-terminal at the server during an access control, see column 2, lines 30-40.
Uzun et al, WO 2022/015948 A1 is relied upon for disclosing of a private querying of a biometric scan, such as a person's photo, against a private database such that the client issuing the private query learns only the identity of the query if it is in the database while the server performing the processing learns nothing of the biometric scan. The exemplary system and method conduct privacy-preserving searches over fuzzy databases via a fuzzy labeled set intersection (FLPSI) protocol. FLPSI protocol computes an intersection of noisy input sets to assess for closeness/similarity metrics in an efficient and optimized search, see abstract.
Goldwerger et al, WO 2020/051232 A1 is relied upon for disclosing a trained machine learning model can transform a biometric template of a person into template units that represent vector coordinates of a template vector in multi-dimensional Euclidian space. The vector coordinates of the template vector can be distributed among comparison nodes of the decentralized network. Similarly, the trained machine learning model can transform a biometric measurement of a person into measurement units that represent vector coordinates of a measurement vector in multi-dimensional Euclidian space. The measurement units can be sent to corresponding nodes of the comparison nodes. The sub-distance (e.g., sub-result) between a vector coordinate of measurement vector and a vector coordinate of a template vector can be calculated at each of the comparison nodes. The sub-distances can be send to calculation nodes where they are aggregated into groups of sub-results. The groups of sub- results can be sent to an arbiter node that determines the distance between the measurement vector and the template vector. The distance is compared to a threshold to determine whether the person is authenticated (or identified) or not, see paragraph 0025.
Karabina et al, US 2020/0028686 is relied upon for disclosing of generating a secure biometric template. The methods comprise: obtaining biometric data from an individual, the biometric data represented as a real-valued feature vector x; mapping the real-valued feature vector x to an integer-valued feature vector X by multiplying each component of the real-valued feature vector x by a value s and performing a nearest integer function using results of the multiplying; and generating the secure biometric template by a cryptographic algorithm using the integer-valued feature vector X.s is a function of n, p and Ƭ. n is the length of the real-valued feature vector x. p is a known parameter of a distance function used to determine a distance between two biometric templates. Ƭ is a parameter controlling the accuracy preserving feature, see abstract.
Hama, EP 2887250 A1 is relied upon for disclosing of a biometric authentication device includes: a function module which executes a predetermined function; a biometric information acquisition unit which acquires biometric information of a user; a distance measurement unit which measures a distance to the user to output a measured value of the distance; a storage unit which stores data representing biometric information of a registrant; a biometric authentication unit which compares the acquired biometric information of the user with the biometric information of the registrant and authenticates the user when the biometric information of the user matches the biometric information of the registrant; a determination unit which determines whether or not to allow use of the predetermined function according to a temporal change of the measured value of the distance after the user has been authenticated; and a function control unit which controls enabling and disabling of the function module based on a determination result of the determination unit, see abstract.
Streit, US 2020/0228336 is relied upon for disclosing of an authentication system for evaluating privacy-enabled biometrics and liveness, the system comprising: at least one processor operatively connected to a memory; an interface configured to: accept a first biometric input associated with a first biometric data type (e.g., video or imaging); accept a second biometric input associated with a second biometric type, wherein the interface is configured to prompt a user to provide the second biometric input according to randomly selected instances of the second biometric input (e.g., the second biometric input providing voice and the randomly selected instances providing liveness); a classification component executed by the at least one processor, comprising at least a first and second deep neural network (“DNN”), the classification component configured to: accept encrypted feature vectors generated with a first classification neural network for processing a first type of an unencrypted biometric (e.g., pre-trained NN to classify the biometric input (e.g., FACENET, etc.)); accept encrypted feature vectors generated with a second classification neural network for processing a second type of an unencrypted biometric (e.g., custom pre-trained NN to classify voice identity—i.e. generate Euclidean measurable feature vectors); classify feature vector of the first type and label inputs during training based on processing the encrypted feature vectors from the first classification neural network using the first DNN, see paragraph 0043.
Takahashi et al, US 2011/0185176 is relied upon for disclosing of an object of the present invention is to provide a method and system for cancelable biometric authentication with less accuracy deterioration and a high level of security (the confidentiality of feature data), to a method and system for biometric authentication where feature data are represented by a one-dimensional array (bit string) or two-dimensional array (image) including a Don't care bit and where the distance between the feature data is defined by the minimum Hamming distance taking into account a shift (displacement), see paragraph 0022.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER REVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-3794. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am - 3:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A REVAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights