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 08/22/2024 and 03/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 34. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: there in typo in “the information from the user and all biometric data that including the image of the user…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: there in typo in “enabling at least one of transaction certification, transaction certification, and recording of encrypted transaction tokens …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a biometric scanner configured to scan a biometric information of the user”, “a camera encoder configured to combine and hash the image of the user into combined data sets that are stored in the storage device” and “a privacy encoder configured to combine and encrypt the combined data sets and biometric template data sets from the storage device into encrypted data sets memorializing the secure transaction” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a privacy encoder configured to combine and encrypt the combined data sets and biometric template data sets from the storage device into encrypted data sets memorializing the secure transaction” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-16 and 46-50 are also rejected based on their dependencies from claims 1 and 45.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 17 and 45 of are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12347533 in view of ECKEL ROBERT ANDREW et al. AU 2014275340 (hereinafter Eckel)
With respect to claims 1, 17 and 45 of the instant application, claims 1, 8 and 16 of US Patent US 12347533 disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 17 and 45 except for at least one of a human witness and non-human digital witness having access to sensor inputs and software, configured to verify that the user providing at least one of the image capture and biometric scan is the user, wherein the at least one human witness and non-human digital witness is in proximity to the user; however, Eckel disclose: (“The method may include receiving a driver's license of the person or receiving a passport of the person. The method may additionally include: receiving, at the scanning device, a biometric of the person presenting the identification document, the biometric taken from the person; and automatically comparing the scanned biometric from the identification document with the received biometric of the person.” Eckel: para. 7)
Therefore, 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 combination of Sussman and Chung with the teachings of Eckel to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to facilitate further screening of identification documents (Eckel: para. 46).
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.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 17, 31, 34, 36, 42, 44, 45, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman, Lester US 20050167484 (hereinafter Sussman) in view of Chung; Kevin Kwong-Tai US 20130251214 (hereinafter Chung) and further in view of ECKEL ROBERT ANDREW et al. AU 2014275340 (hereinafter Eckel).
As per claim 1, Sussman teaches: A verified secure biometric collection system for collecting and recording data from a user associated with a secure transaction, comprising:
a storage device (Sussman: fig. 1);
an input interface configured to receive information from the user related to the secure transaction ("(3.6) A display unit 8 (e.g., a computer screen) on which to display messages for the visitor. The preferred embodiment of the invention uses a touch-screen display. The display 8 is also used to display an interactive keyboard if information is required to be entered by the visitor. The display of a multitude of language alphabets is relatively easy using such a touch- screen keyboard. " Sussman: para.85);
a camera configured to capture an image of the user ("The first thing that the Kiosk 1 does is to collect the applicant's biometric data, e.g., via the kiosk's Digital Camera 3 and Digital Fingerprint Scanner 5. All information gathered from the visa applicant is temporarily stored in the kiosk's Memory 4 as part of the applicant's record. Next, the person is informed that a photo will be taken. Preferably, a countdown indicator is displayed on the display 8 informing the visitor of the imminent photo taking." Sussman: para. 102.).
a biometric scanner configured to scan biometric information of the user (Sussman: para. 81 and 102);
a biometric encoder configured to process the biometric scan of the user into biometric template data sets and store the biometric template data sets in the storage device (Sussman: para. 9);
wherein the system is configured to produce a copy of the secure transaction that includes the encrypted data sets for the user (Sussman: para. 122 table 1 and “some of the information is encrypted to prevent unauthorized viewing of the specific information. The invention does not prevent the encrypting of other, or all of the information.” Sussman: para. 124 ),
wherein the storage device is configured to be purged of all the data collected from the user including the information from the user and all biometric data that includes the image of the user, biometrics of the user, combined data sets, biometrics template data sets, and encrypted data sets once the copy of the secure transaction is produced (“All information gathered from the visa applicant is temporarily stored in the kiosk's Memory 4 as part of the applicant's record. ” Sussman: para. 81 and 102);
Sussman does not teach; however, Chung discloses: a camera encoder configured to combine and hash the image of the user into combined data sets that are stored in the storage device ("Preferably, biometric data is hashed, e.g., at a 256 bit security level, as it is captured, e.g., for the image and minutiae template for each fingerprint of an individual finger, and is again hashed as a set of biometric data, e.g., a set of ten fingerprints, to prevent the data from being changed, tampered with and/or substituted for by another fingerprint image and/or template. In addition, biometric data may be hashed and/or encrypted in combination with other data, e.g., demographic data, for additional security." Chung: para. 84);
a privacy encoder configured to combine and encrypt the combined data sets and biometric template data sets from the storage device into encrypted data sets memorializing the secure transaction ("The hashed demographic data 812, the hashed fingerprint data 814, the hashed facial image data 816, the hashed dynamic digital signature data 818 and any other entered and/or captured data is combined 820 and is encrypted by an encryption algorithm of which many are known in the art." Chung: para. 162);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sussman with the methods of Chung to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in form of a card as indication of completed registration (Chung: para. 162)
The combination of Sussman and Chung does not explicitly teach; however, Eckel disclose: at least one of a human witness and non-human digital witness having access to sensor inputs and software, configured to verify that the user providing at least one of the image capture and biometric scan is the user, wherein the at least one human witness and non-human digital witness is in proximity to the user (“The method may include receiving a driver's license of the person or receiving a passport of the person. The method may additionally include: receiving, at the scanning device, a biometric of the person presenting the identification document, the biometric taken from the person; and automatically comparing the scanned biometric from the identification document with the received biometric of the person.” Eckel: para. 7)
Therefore, 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 combination of Sussman and Chung with the teachings of Eckel to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to facilitate further screening of identification documents (Eckel: para. 46).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: the storage device is in a network Cloud and the input interface operates as a live encoded interface (Sussman: fig. 1B the Kiosk 1 in communication with Central Database 2).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: said user is at least one of a human or artificial intelligence created persona (Sussman: para, 85).
As per claim 17, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: upon completing the secure transaction, enabling access for the user to at least one of a real-time communication session, social media session site, restricted access session site, government interaction session site, financial transaction session site, and virtual world session site (the applicant communicates through a website om the internet. Sussman: para. 119).
As per claim 34, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: proving physical proximity and spatial geographic-location of the user to the input interface (the communication of applicant with the system is performed in a kiosk. Sussman: Abs).
As per claim 36, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: proving physical proximity and spatial geographic-location of the user to the input interface (the communication of applicant with the system is performed in a kiosk. Sussman: Abs).
As per claim 42, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: transmitting at least the encrypted data sets and secure transaction into at least one of a Cloud Based Auditing service, Cloud Based recording service, third-party computing system and governmental computing system (Sussman: para. 165).
As per claim 44, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: said user is at least one of a human or artificially intelligent persona (Sussman: para. 81).
As per claim 45, the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel teaches all the limitations of the claim (see the rejection of claim 1). The only difference is that image of the user in claim 1 has been replaced with data information of the secure transaction in the system of clam 45; however, Sussman discloses scanning (reading) visitors’ passports (e.g., data information of a secure transaction) Sussman: para. 8).
As per claim 47, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated herein. Sussman discloses: at least one of a credit card, a debit card, a digital passport card, a bank access card, a stored value monetary card, and virtual identity token, providing at least one of a physical and digital identification, wherein the sensor inputs are one or more reader (s) in proximity to the user, wherein the at least one physical card is embedded with processing software to assist in the verification (Sussman: para. 83).
As per claim 48, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated herein. Sussman teaches: the non-human digital witness comprises an artificial intelligence engine operating to analyze sensor data taken of the user to verify the user is an actual person (Sussman: para. 81).
Claims 2, 18 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Hershey; John R. et al. US 20060066738 (hereinafter Hershey).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Hershey discloses: a second camera, wherein the first camera is configured to capture the image of the user in a visible range, the second camera is configured to capture a second image of the user in a non-visible range, and the camera encoder is configured to combine and hash the image of the user in the visible range and the image of user in the non-visible range into the combined data sets (Hershey: para. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Hershey to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to enhance the quality of the captured image (Hershey: para. 9).
As per claim 18, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 37, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Hershey discloses: capturing via a non-visible light capturing camera at least one of facial, skin, and distinguishing marks of the user (Hershey: para. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Hershey to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to enhance the quality of the captured image (Hershey: para. 9).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Johnsrud; Darrell US 20170243214 (hereinafter Johnsrud).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Johnsrud discloses: transmit the data collected from the user including the information from the user and all biometric data that includes the image of the user, the biometric measurement of the user, combined data sets, biometric template data sets, and encrypted data sets once the copy of the secure transaction is produced to an immutable distributed ledger upon receiving the user's instruction (Johnsrud: para. 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Johnsrud to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance management and security of system data by using a distributed ledger system.
As per claim 19, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of McNeill; Stephen et al. US 9390752 (hereinafter McNeill).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, McNeill discloses: the sensor inputs are one or more witness-cameras in proximity to the user, having image processing software to assist in the verification (McNeill: col. 1, lines 14-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of c Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of McNeill to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to since such additional cameras capture a scene from additional viewpoints, providing additional spatial information about a scene (.McNeill: col. 1, lines 14-26).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung does not teach ; however, Eckel discloses: Sensor inputs further comprises, at least one of a microphone, speaker, thermal sensor, and display, with additional processing software to assist in the verification (“The scanner device may automatically compare the scanned portrait with the traveler's face in the photo taken at the check point (250). The 12 WO 2014/197202 PCT/US2014/038788 comparison may use any facial recognition software. The facial recognition software may remove background from the photo so that only the facial portrait of the person remains. The comparison may yield a quantified degree of likeliness” Eckel: para. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman and Chung with the teaching of Eckel to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to assist the system in identifying and verification of a detected person.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 21, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 7, 22 and 23 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of KUHN; MICHAEL J. US 20100121808 (hereinafter Kuhn).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Kuhn discloses: wherein the non-human digital witness comprises an artificial intelligence engine, operating to analyze sensor data taken of the user to verify the user is an actual person (“Depending on particular implementation of the AI engine 102, the neural network 604 may also perform such functions as pattern and sequence recognition, sequential decision-making, face and object identification and recognition, and sequence recognition to identify gestures and speech.” Kuhn: Para. 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Kuhn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance decision-making through complex data analysis.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Kuhn discloses: at least one of an avatar and robotic image as an interface for the artificial intelligence engine with the user (Kuhn: Para. 36 and 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Kuhn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance decision-making through complex data analysis and creating to mimic a real world scenario.
As per claim 22, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 23, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 7 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 49, the rejection of claim 48 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Kuhn discloses: at least one of an avatar and robotic image as an interface for the artificial intelligence engine with the user (Kuhn: Para. 36 and 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Kuhn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance decision-making through complex data analysis and creating to mimic a real world scenario.
Claims 8, 24 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel in view of Kuhn and further in view of Rivera; Javier Hernandez et al. US 20130232515 (hereinafter Rivera).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung, Eckel and Kuhn does not teach; however, Rivera discloses:
the artificial intelligence engine works in concert with data from at least one of the input interface, camera, and biometric scanner for verification of the user (Rivera: para. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung, Eckel and Kuhn with the methods of Rivera to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to perform a more robust verification of a user.
As per claim 24, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 8 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 50, the rejection of claim 48 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung, Eckel and Kuhn does not teach; however, Rivera discloses: the artificial intelligence engine is configured to work in concert with data from at least one of the input interface, reader, and biometric scanner for verification of the user (Rivera: para. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung, Eckel and Kuhn with the methods of Rivera to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to perform a more robust verification of a user.
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Gupte; Ajit et al. US 20150364158 (hereinafter Gupte).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Gupte discloses: the biometric encoder is further configured to timestamp the biometric scan of the user with a first timestamp and a verification indication from the non-human digital witness with a second timestamp, and the processor is configured to determine a difference between the first timestamp and second timestamp is less than or equal to a predetermined time (Gupte: para. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Gupte to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to determine the validity of received data.
As per claim 25, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 9 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 11, 12, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Doss; Stephen Scott et al. US 20130221083 (hereinafter Doss).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Doss discloses:
A visual token code produced from the privacy encoder and assigned to one or more captured images of the user (“As mentioned above, device 210 may encode token 150 to generate visual tag 155 and make the visual tag 155 available to device 120 via the visual technique described above.” Doss: para.46) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Doss to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied provide access to system resources.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Doss discloses: a cryptographic hash Audit Token data element, the data element containing at least one of transaction metadata, identification recordings, and verification of identification recordings (“In one aspect, token 150 is generated based on, or as a function of (e.g., a hash function), one or more of the following: the source data 135, the identity of device 120, the identity of the user of the device 120, and a time related to creation or usage of token 150.”Doss: para. 49); and
an encrypted Audit Token from encrypting the data element (“Token 150 may be a non-public, unique token. Token 150 may be a secure (or encrypted) token”. Doss: para. 49”) , wherein the encrypted Audit Token provides access to a connected Cloud-based data store (Device 220 may retrieve token 150 from visual tag 155 and use token 150 to access source device 280 or remote device 270, via network 250, to obtain source data 135. Doss: para. 46);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Doss to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied provide access to system resources.
As per claim 26, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 11 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 11.
As per claim 27, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 12 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 12.
Claims 13, 28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Yigit; Tamer US 20110099073 (hereinafter Yigit).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Yigit discloses: an Audit Token and a common-format PDF Receipt, wherein the Audit Token is used to inform an external system of confirmation and recording of the transaction (Yigit: para. 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Yigit to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to indicate recording of a transaction.
As per claim 28, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 13 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 13.
As per claim 32, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Yigit discloses: enabling at least one of transaction certification, transaction certification, and recording of encrypted transaction tokens (token recorded. Yigit: para. 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Yigit to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to indicate recording of a transaction.
Claims 14, 15, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Pathakis, Scott William et al. US 20050071687 (hereinafter Pathakis).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Pathakis discloses: a certificate document generated from the transaction, containing an encrypted user identity token (Pathakis: para. 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Pathakis to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to provide temporary proof of a user's authenticated identity.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Pathakis discloses: a non-repudiable, one-time transaction encoding of details of the transaction, containing user identity tokens in plurality for a plurality of users (Pathakis: para. 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Pathakis to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to provide temporary proof of a user's authenticated identity.
As per claim 29, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 14 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 14.
As per claim 30, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 15 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Kikuchi, Shinji US 20020040337 (hereinafter Kikuchi).
As per claim 33, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Kikuchi discloses: electronically notarizing, via the non-human digital witness, the transaction (Kikuchi: para. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Kikuchi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance fraud prevention with making the transactions faster.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Rivera; Javier Hernandez et al. US 20130232515 (hereinafter Rivera).
As per claim 35, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Rivera discloses: reading and recording biometric data for a plurality of human and non-human digital witnesses proximal to the user input (Rivera: para. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Rivera to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to perform a more robust verification of a user.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of DOUGLASS; Matthew Christopher US 20160217254 (hereinafter Douglass).
As per claim 38, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Douglass discloses: pre-emptively encrypting and privatizing recordings for real-time transmission and storage in a Cloud-based data store (“the patient medical data record to which the user desires to add an image, embodiments further include obtaining the image; encrypting the image; saving the encrypted image; ”Douglass: para. 17 and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Douglass to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to securely record user data.
As per claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Douglass discloses: receiving confirmation and cryptographic validations, in plurality, from the Cloud-based data store, to determine validity or denial of validity for the recordings (“transmitting the encrypted image from the temporary storage to the server; receiving from the server, a confirmation that the image has been added to the patient medical data record; and deleting the saved encrypted image from the temporary storage on the client device.” Douglass: para. 17 and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Douglass to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure secure recording of user data.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of MCALLISTER MARK GORDON et al. WO 2015139119 ( hereinafter McAllister).
As per claim 40, the rejection of claim 36 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, McAllister discloses: transmitting a permanent, timestamped and geographically-stamped Audit Token to an external public cloud archive data store, when geographic location contains at least one of GPS, GLONASS, and terrestrial cellular location data (A user may then select "Send" which sends the user token, user GPS coordinates, report type, time of day, location identifier and many other pieces of user and location information to Server Module 210. McAllister: para. 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of McAllister to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to create a permanent record of a token.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Fitzgerald; Robert Eric et al. US 20140282936 (hereinafter Fitzgerald).
As per claim 41, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Fitzgerald discloses: electronically performing a cryptographic non-recoverable erase on data recordings (Fitzgerald: para. 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Fitzgerald to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to prevent access to stored cryptographic information.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Gallagher, III; Raymond J. US 7861077 (hereinafter Gallagher).
As per claim 43, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Gallagher discloses: transmitting a common-format PDF Document certificate into a Cloud Based Data store, containing serialized confirmation specifying user identity and transaction token recordings, for future verification application (Gallagher: col. 18, line 57 through col. 19, lines 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Gallagher to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to create a permanent record of a token.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman in view of Chung in view of Eckel and further in view of Milazzo; Andrea Maria et al. US 20170279783 (hereinafter Milazzo).
As per claim 46, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated herein. The combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel does not teach; however, Milazzo discloses: to transmit the data collected from the user including information and all biometric data that includes the biometric measurement of the user, combined data sets, biometric template data sets, and encrypted data sets once the copy of the secure transaction is produced to an immutable distributed ledger upon receiving the user's instruction (Milazzo: para. 65 and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Sussman, Chung and Eckel with the methods of Milazzo to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure transparency immutability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493