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 .
Response to Amendments
This office action responds to the amendments filed on January 26, 2026 for application 18/419,793. Claims 1, 7-8, 11, and 17-19 are amended, claim 21 is added as a new claim, and claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments filed on January 26, 2026, and the Examiner responds as provided below.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at page 9 of the Remarks that concerns the objection to the drawings, the submission of the replacement sheet resolves the issue and the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks that concerns the § 112(a) rejection, the amendments to the claims resolves the written description issue and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at page 11 of the Remarks that concerns the § 112(b) rejection, the amendments to the claims resolves the indefiniteness issue and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks that concerns the § 103 rejection, the Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the claim amendments are persuasive, and consequently the Examiner conducted a new prior art search. The Applicant’s arguments are now moot with respect to the pending claims because the arguments do not apply to some of the references currently used in the rejection of the aforementioned claims as detailed below.
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.
The following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nice et al. (US 2012/0154117, “Nice) in view of Dinkelmann (US 2021/0144009, “Dinkelmann”), and further in view of Petry et al. (US 2019/0075130, “Petry”).
Regarding Claim 1
Nice discloses
A system (Fig. 6, abstract), comprising:
one or more processors coupled with memory (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050], “FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a system 130 comprising a computing device 132 configured to implement one or more embodiments provided herein. In one configuration, computing device 132 includes at least one processing unit 136 and memory 138.”), configured to:
1 …;
determine that the entity is not associated with a consent to collect biometric data of the entity…2 (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “As a second such example, the computer 12 may spontaneously initiate the registration of an individual identity 16 of an individual [entity] 14, e.g., by sporadically or continuously detecting biometrics 18 and/or device identifiers 36, and initiating the registration [i.e., no prior consent to collect biometric data] upon identifying a biometric 18 and/or device identifier 36 that is not associated with an individual identity 16 in the data store 78 (e.g., by searching the data store 78 upon detecting the biometric [indicative of a prior consent to collect] 18 or device identifier 36, and upon not finding a corresponding [association] individual identity [entity] 16, storing a new individual identity 16 in the data store 78).”);
generate a request for the consent to collect the biometric data by the image capture device…3 (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “First, the computer 12 may present [after generating] to the individual 14 an offer to register [request consent] the individual identity 16 of the individual 14 using one or more biometrics [collected biometric data] 16, and may only proceed with biometric registration upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the offer.”);
present the request for the consent to collect the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “First, the computer 12 may present to the individual 14 an offer to register [request consent] the individual identity 16 of the individual 14 using one or more biometrics [collected biometric data] 16, and may only proceed with biometric registration upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the offer.”);
receive, from at least one of monitoring of the entity or a device associated with the entity, a response indicating acceptance of the request for the consent to collect the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶ [0036], “First, the computer [monitoring the entity] 12 may present to the individual 14 an offer to register the individual identity 16 of the individual 14 using one or more biometrics 16, and may only proceed with biometric registration upon receiving [a response] from the individual [entity] 14 an acceptance of the offer [request].”); and
aggregate the biometric data…4 (Fig. 6, ¶ [0036], “The computer 12 may then activate the biometric detector 22, perform an analysis 26 of a captured representation 24 of the individual 14, extract one or more biometrics 18, and create a new individual identity 16 for the individual 14 comprising the [aggregated] biometric(s) [biometric data] 18.”).
Nice doesn’t disclose
1 determine, via an image capture device comprising one or more sensors, that an entity is within a zone defined at least in part by a field of view of the image capture device;
2 … according to rules associated with the zone,
3 … according to rules associated with the zone;
4 … according to the rules responsive to receiving the acceptance.
Dinkelmann, however, discloses
1 determine, via an image capture device comprising one or more sensors, that an entity is within a zone defined at least in part by a field of view of the image capture device (¶¶ [0063]-[0064], “The biometric system [sensor] comprises a first image capture device 72, which may be in the form of a stereoscopic 3D camera, and a second image capture device 74, which may be a high-resolution image capture means.”; and “In yet another embodiment, the device 10 is adapted to determine subjects within a predetermined field of view and/or within a predetermined region [zone]. Outside of the predetermined region subjects 1 may be ignored or excluded from processing. This may allow for movement of subjects outside of the region without biometric matching processes being carried out on these subjects. This can improve the privacy of subjects 1 outside of the virtual region, while also allowing more targeted processing to be achieved.”);
Regarding the combination of Nice and Dinkelmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify biometric system of Nice to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the biometric system of Nice, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a field-of-view imaging feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the facial identification system of Dinkelmann, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the field-of-view imaging feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the field-of-view imaging feature to the base biometric system of Nice, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Petry, however, discloses
2, 3 … according to rules associated with the zone (¶ [0201], “For example, an administrative portal may enable an administrator to set policy controls governing the logging of browser data, the storage of user [biometric] data,…” and ¶ [0168], “In some embodiments, a user may request information regarding where data (e.g. user-identifying information) is stored. In some embodiments, a user may request information regarding what data (e.g. user-identifying information) is stored, e.g. based on data accessed and/or downloaded during a cloud browser session.”; see also Dinkelmann ¶ [0064], “Outside of the predetermined region subjects 1 may be ignored or excluded from processing [via a rule associated with the zone that acts as a privacy rule].”; and “This can improve the privacy of subjects 1 outside of the virtual region,…”);
4 … according to the rules responsive to receiving the acceptance (¶¶ [0168], [0201], e.g., the aggregated biometric data is collected and stored according to local regulations or rules that enable, for example, a right-to-forget by the user).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann and Petry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a data-regulation feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the data storage system of Petry, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the data-regulation feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the data-regulation feature to the base biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3
Nice in view of Dinkelmann, and further in view of Petry (“Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry”) discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
1 …;
identify that the second entity is associated with a denial of a second request for the consent to collect the biometric data (¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “As a second such example, the computer 12 may spontaneously initiate the registration of an individual identity 16 of an individual 14, e.g., by sporadically or continuously detecting biometrics [via Dinkelmann ¶ [0064]] 18 and/or device identifiers 36, and initiating the registration upon identifying a biometric 18 and/or device identifier 36 that is not associated with an individual identity 16 in the data store 78 (e.g., by searching the data store 78 upon detecting the biometric 18 or device identifier 36, and upon not finding a corresponding individual identity 16, storing a new individual identity 16 in the data store 78). This registration process may be initiated automatically, and/or may be contingent upon the consent of the individual [and subject to a second request for the consent to collect the biometric data] 14 or another user (e.g., the computer 12 may present to the individual 14 an offer to generate an individual identity 16 for the individual 14 and/or to associate an identified device 34 with the individual identity 16 of the individual 14, and only proceeding upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the offer).”); and
prevent a collection of the second biometric data responsive to identifying the denial of the second request (¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “First, the computer 12 may present to the individual 14 an offer to register the individual identity 16 of the individual 14 using one or more biometrics 16, and may only proceed with biometric registration upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the offer.”).
Dinkelmann further discloses
1 determine, via the image capture device, that a second entity comprising second biometric data is within the zone (¶ [0064], “In yet another embodiment, the device 10 is adapted to determine subjects [second entity] within a predetermined field of view and/or within a predetermined region [zone]. Outside of the predetermined region subjects 1 may be ignored or excluded from processing. This may allow for movement of subjects outside of the region without biometric matching processes being carried out on these subjects. This can improve the privacy of subjects 1 outside of the virtual region, while also allowing more targeted processing to be achieved.”);
Regarding the combination of Nice and Dinkelmann, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 4
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
generate, responsive to receiving the response indicating the acceptance of the request for the consent to collect the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶ [0036]), a profile associated with the entity (¶ [0036], “The computer 12 may then present to the individual 14 an offer to associate the device 34 (and, in particular, the device identifiers 36 of the device 34) with the individual identity ”); and
store the aggregated biometric data in the memory…1 (¶ [0036], “Upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the offer to associate the device 34 with the individual 14, the computer 12 may store the device identifier 36 in the data store [memory] 78 associated with the individual identity 16 of the individual 14. In this manner, the computer 12 may register the individual identity 16 of the individual 14 including both one or more biometrics [aggregated biometric data] 18 and one or more device identifiers 36, based on the interaction, consent, and cooperation of the individual 14.”)
Petry further discloses
1 …according to the rules (¶¶ [0168]-[0201]).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann and Petry, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 4.
Regarding Claim 6
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
aggregate the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶ [0036]) according to the {rules (Petry ¶¶ [0168]-[0201], )} comprising at least one of:
1 ….
Petry further discloses
1 a rule based on a locality of the zone, a rule based on a type of the biometric data, a rule based on a time period of aggregation of the biometric data, a rule based on a storage of the biometric data (¶ [0201], “The cloud browser as described herein may fully comply with governmental regulations across the world, especially those related to data privacy (e.g., General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)). For example, an administrative portal may enable an administrator to set policy controls governing the logging of browser data, the storage of user [biometric] data, the separation of personal browsing data from work-related browsing data, the regionalization of data storage, and/or the like.”; and ¶ [0168], “In some embodiments, a user may define where and/or what data (e.g. user-identifying information) is to be stored, including an option such that no data is stored and/or stored data is deleted at the end of a browser (e.g. cloud browser) session (i.e. “right to forget” option). In some embodiments, a user may request information regarding where data (e.g. user-identifying information) is stored.”), or a rule based on the processing of the biometric data.
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann and Petry, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 8
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
present the request for the consent to collect the biometric data to the entity via (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036]) an application (¶ [0046], “By way of illustration, both an application running on a controller and the controller can be a component. One or more components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution and a component may be localized on one computer and/or distributed between two or more computers.”) operating on the device associated with the entity (Fig. 1, ¶ [0018], “FIG. 1 presents an illustration of an exemplary scenario 10 featuring a computer [device] 12 configured to identify various individuals 14 according to one or more biometrics 18. In this exemplary scenario 10, the computer 12 comprises a set of biometric detectors 22, including a camera, a microphone, and a fingerprint scanner.”) according to a set of characteristics of the request defining at least one of a duration of the presentation of the request, an inclusion in the request of a description of usage of the biometric data, or a visual characteristic (¶ [0032], “While this latter embodiment may be less efficient than others (e.g., by involving an analysis [via associated parameters] 26 of a representation 24 of the device 34, such as an image [with display characteristics that are subject to the analysis]), it may have particular advantages, e.g., by facilitating the detection of a device 34 that is not capable of or configured to communicate with the device detector 40).”).
Regarding Claim 9
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
aggregate the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶ [0036]) comprising a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry using the image capture device (Fig. 1, ¶ [0018], “FIG. 1 presents an illustration of an exemplary scenario 10 featuring a computer 12 configured to identify various individuals 14 according to one or more biometrics 18. In this exemplary scenario 10, the computer 12 comprises a set of biometric detectors 22, including a camera, a microphone, and a fingerprint scanner. These biometric detectors 22 (optionally including one or more software algorithms used in conjunction therewith) may be configured to capture a representation 24 of a physiological aspect of an individual 14, and to perform an analysis 26 on the representation 24 in order to generate one or more biometrics 18.”).
Regarding Claim 10
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
1 …;
present the rules on a display device associated with the one or more processors (Fig. 6, i.e., the figure illustrates through the “Welcome!” message teaches a display device and various rules, e.g., associating a device with a user, and it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to similarly display the rules as taught by Petry ¶ [0168] to adequately inform the user about the relevant rules. See MPEP § 2141(III), stating “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”);
2 ….
Petry further discloses
1 generate the rules using at least one of user input (¶ [0168], “In some embodiments, a user [via user input] may define [generate] where and/or what data (e.g. user-identifying information) is to be stored [thus, according to rules], including an option such that no data is stored and/or stored data is deleted at the end of a browser (e.g. cloud browser) session (i.e. “right to forget” option). In some embodiments, a user may request information regarding where data (e.g. user-identifying information) is stored.”) or data received from a remote database;
2 validate the rules responsive to receiving an interaction accepting the rules (¶ [0204], “Further, a cloud browser [or the processors as taught by Nice Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]] may provide tools, functionality, features, and/or background processes that satisfy and/or facilitate compliance [provide validation] with a policy (e.g. regulatory policies such as GDPR).”; and ¶ [0168], “In some embodiments, a user may define [as an interaction accepting the rules] where and/or what data (e.g. user-identifying information) is to be stored [according to the rules], including an option such that no data is stored and/or stored data is deleted at the end of a browser (e.g. cloud browser) session (i.e. “right to forget” option).”).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann and Petry, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Independent Claims 11 and 19
With respect to independent claims 11 and 19, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11 and 19. Therefore, claims 11 and 19 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claims 13-14, 16, and 18
With respect to independent claims 13-14, 16, and 18, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claims 3-4, 6, and 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 13-14, 16, and 18. Therefore, claims 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 3-4, 6, and 8.
B. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nice in view of Dinkelmann and Petry, and further in view of Ross et al. (US 2021/0295010, “Ross”).
Regarding Claim 2
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
1 …;
identify that the second entity is associated with an acceptance of a second request for the consent to collect the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “First, the computer 12 may present to the individual 14 an offer to register [request consent] the individual identity 16 of the individual 14 using one or more biometrics [collected biometric data] 16, and may only proceed with biometric registration upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the [request] offer.”); and
aggregate the second biometric data, responsive to identifying the acceptance of the second request, …3 (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036]).
Dinkelmann further discloses
1 determine, via the image capture device, that a second entity comprising second biometric data is within the zone (¶ [0064], “In yet another embodiment, the device 10 is adapted to determine subjects [second entity] within a predetermined field of view and/or within a predetermined region [zone]. Outside of the predetermined region subjects 1 may be ignored or excluded from processing. This may allow for movement of subjects outside of the region without biometric matching processes being carried out on these subjects. This can improve the privacy of subjects 1 outside of the virtual region, while also allowing more targeted processing to be achieved.”);
Regarding the combination of Nice and Dinkelmann, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 2.
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry doesn’t disclose
3 …for periods corresponding to the entity being within the zone.
Ross, however, discloses
3 …for periods corresponding to the entity being within the zone (¶ [0026], “In some implementations, the initialization data may, for example, include access specifications which specify locations or areas [zone] of controlled access and/or days, dates and/or times [periods], during which access is permitted on a controlled basis to an authorized individual [entity].”; and ¶ [0034], “FIGS. 4A and 4B show an exemplary hand imager 401 for hand biometrics authentication [for corresponding periods].”).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry and Ross, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an access-period feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the biometric system of Ross, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the access-period feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the access-period feature to the base biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12
With respect to dependent claim 12, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 2.
C. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nice in view of Dinkelmann and Petry, and further in view of Brannon et al. (US 2020/0175206, “Brannon”).
Regarding Claim 5
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
identify, responsive to determining that the entity is not associated with the consent to collect the biometric data of the entity,…1 (¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “As a second such example, the computer 12 may spontaneously initiate the registration of an individual identity 16 of an individual 14, e.g., by sporadically or continuously detecting biometrics 18 and/or device identifiers 36, and initiating the registration upon identifying a biometric 18 and/or device identifier 36 that is not associated with an individual identity [of the entity] 16 in the data store 78 (e.g., by searching the data store 78 upon detecting the biometric 18 or device identifier 36, and upon not finding a corresponding individual identity 16, storing a new individual identity 16 in the data store 78). This registration process may be initiated automatically, and/or may be contingent upon the consent of the individual14 or another user (e.g., the computer 12 may present to the individual 14 an offer to generate an individual identity 16 for the individual 14 and/or to associate an identified device 34 with the individual identity 16 of the individual 14, and only proceeding upon receiving from the individual 14 an acceptance of the offer).”).
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry doesn’t disclose
1 … that a condition for collecting the biometric data is satisfied, the condition comprising at least one of an age of the entity, a profile associated with the entity, or a location associated with the entity.
Brannon, however, discloses
1 … that a condition for collecting the biometric data is satisfied, the condition comprising at least one of an age of the entity, a profile associated with the entity, or a location associated with the entity (¶ [0684], “In various embodiments, the system may require [as a condition comprising] guardian consent [at least one of age] (e.g., parental consent) for a data subject [and implicitly meeting the condition when the entity is of an age]. The system may prompt the data subject to initiate a request for guardian consent or the system may initiate a request for guardian consent without initiation from the data subject (e.g., in the background of a transaction). In some embodiments, the system may require guardian consent when a data subject is under the age for valid consent for the particular type of personal data that will be collected as part of the particular transaction. The system may use the any age verification method described herein to determine the age of the data subject. Additionally, in some implementations, the system may prompt the data subject to identify whether the data subject is younger, at least, or older than a particular age (e.g., an age for valid consent for the particular type of personal data that will be collected as part of the particular transaction), and the system may require guardian consent when the data subject identifies an age younger than the particular age.”).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry and Brannon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a consent feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the data management system of Brannon, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the consent feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the consent feature to the base biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15
With respect to dependent claim 15, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 5 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 5.
D. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nice in view of Dinkelmann and Petry, and further in view of Chetal et al. (US 2011/0087611, “Chetal”).
Regarding Claim 7
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to:
present the request for the consent to collect the biometric data to the entity…1 (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [0035]-[0036])
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry doesn’t disclose
1 …via a loudspeaker according to a set of characteristics of the request defining at least one of a volume of the request, a speech pattern of the request, a duration of the presentation of the request, or a language of the request.
Chetal, however, discloses
1 …via a loudspeaker according to a set of characteristics of the request defining at least one of a volume of the request, a speech pattern of the request, a duration of the presentation of the request, or a language of the request (Fig. 3, ¶¶ [0037]-[0038], “FIG. 3 is a perspective view of an automated teller machine 102 enabled with a biometric identification unit 108, in accordance with an example embodiment. In this embodiment, the automated teller machine 102 includes a camera 302, a face and iris recognition device 304, an iris scanner 306, a [loud]speaker 308, a microphone 310, a fingerprint scanner 312 and a graphical user interface 314 as input devices.”; and “In one or more embodiments, the automated teller machine 102 may guide the user visually through the user interface 134, or through voice [and in a language of the request to enable understanding by the entity] using the speaker 308.”).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry and Chetal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a speaker;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the biometric system of Chetal, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the speaker; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the speaker to the base biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 17
With respect to dependent claim 17, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 7.
E. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nice in view of Dinkelmann and Petry, and further in view of Sullivan (US 2015/0101065, “Sullivan”).
Regarding Claim 21
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry discloses the system of claim 1, and Nice further discloses
comprising the one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ [0050]) to: aggregate the biometric data (Fig. 6, ¶ [0036]) according to…1
Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry doesn’t disclose
1 … the rules comprising at least one rule based on at least one law or regulation for a locality of the zone.
Sullivan, however, discloses
1 … the rules comprising at least one rule based on at least one law or regulation for a locality of the zone (¶ [0023], “This provides users with complete control of how their information is accessed, when their information is accessed, and what information is accessible by whom. Both the underlying application and individual 100 (shown in FIG. 1) are aware of when, how and where any authentication is taking place, allowing applications to apply risk-aware policies based on the nature and security of any match performed. Providing users this control will enable the applications and/or corporations to more easily comply with the variety of privacy laws [in various jurisdictions/zones] affecting retention of [aggregated] biometric data, healthcare information and other sensitive data files, without the overhead of having to manually manage compliance for their users. Because individual 100 is in charge of their own information, informed consent for continued retention and compliance with removal requests is or can be implicit.”).
Regarding the combination of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry and Sullivan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the privacy law requirement;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the biometric system of Sullivan, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the privacy law feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the privacy law feature to the base biometric system of Nice-Dinkelmann-Petry, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491