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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20100078475) in view of Davies et al. (US 20080212847).
Re claim 1, Lin et al. teaches
receiving identification information usable to establish an identity of a user (claim 12 teaches receiving the unique identifier, FIG. 33 teaches scanning an RFID passport or license, FIG. 33 teaches manual entry, paragraph [0071]+ teaches a server or web service storing identity information, paragraph [0073]+ teaches a unique identifier can be sent from the handheld device to the kiosk to download information from a database or that name picture and information can be sent from the handheld device to the kiosk, and that facial/ fingerprint comparison can be performed at the kiosk which obviates storing of identification information in order for a comparison to be performed per paragraph [0078] and database storage);
storing at least a portion of the identification information in a secure element of the computer system, wherein the secure element is configured to restrict direct access to the at least a portion of the identification information by one or more processors of the computer system (see claim 12 wherein the data is stored on the handheld device, interpreted as secure/ restricting access and paragraph [0035]+ that teaches CPU 12 can include one or more processors and memory 14 is taught as RAM but can also include ROM or flash and nonvolatile store 16 distinct from main memory 14 and as discussed above as the kiosk can perform identity verification using data from a database which can include additional information of the user and can be a third party or government storage).
Lin et al. teaches during an authentication process that valid biometric data is received that identification information is provided to the computer (paragraph [0067]+ and discussed above that a database stores identification information, and further wherein the identification information can include a name, picture, description (paragraph [0073]+ and FIG. 35 is interpreted to teach additional identification information).
Lin et al. is silent to indexing the identification information with an index value derived from biometric data collected from a user, receiving that index when the biometric received is valid and accesses and providing the information using the index.
Davies et al. teaches an index number associated with biometric submissions before an authentication grant can be performed (paragraph [0044]+ and FIG. 9+ which teaches indexing information to biometric information) .
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to enhance security level of the system and linking of data.
Re claim 2, as discussed above, biometric information is compared to authenticate an individual by collecting an instance of data and comparing it to stored data. The index value is used to fetched as a security enhancement.
Re claim 3, as taught above, the government can be the one storing the database (information), such as when it is a government issued document such as a passport. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, in light of claim 12, to receive approval as part of the process of storing the data from the issuer.
Re claim 5, Lin et al. teaches NFC (claim 1+).
Re claim 6, paragraph [0073]+ teaches the use of a picture as identification information. Further, as discussed above, an index to a database can be interpreted as a token to access the picture.
Re claim 8, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 1.
Re claim 10, an RFID passport has been discussed above by Lin et al., and passport number is an obvious expedient for passport data.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 6.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 2.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claim 17, as discussed above, short range radio has been discussed with RFID reading of a passport or identity document.
Re claim 18, a photograph is interpreted as part of a passport.
Re claim 19, comparing biometric data has been discussed above, and is routine/ conventional for biometric authorization.
Claim(s) 4 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al./ Davies et al., as discussed above, in view of Vantalon et al. (US 20060136702).
The teachings of Lin et al./ Davies et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the providing the digital certificate and signature as recited.
Vantalon et al. generally teaches such limtaitons (paragraph [0006]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security. Further, it would have been obvious for the certificate to be generated by the issuer as it corresponds to the trusted party (creator of the document) and thus is in charge of/ concerned with data security of the document.
Re claim 15, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 4.
Re claim 16, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 3.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al./ Davies et al., as discussed above, in view of Russo (US 20180129858).
The teachings of Lin et al./ Davies et al. have been discussed above but are silent to different fingers, as Davies et al. teaches eyes.
Russo teaches such limitations (paragraph [0028]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for enhanced security for different information types.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach at least the public key pair, CSR, and digital signature as per claims 7 and 11, and the generating, sending, and receiving per claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new art provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876