DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anantharaman, USPN 2014/0230018.
With regard to claim 9, Anantharaman discloses an apparatus for providing access to a controller that is managing a process image and implements a runtime environment to execute an automation application using the process image (0003, 0010, 0013, 0017), the controller being linked to a set of communication devices including the apparatus (0097, 0100), the apparatus including one or more network interfaces to communicate with a communication network (0035, 0100), a processor coupled to the network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (0097, 0100), and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor (0093, 0100), the process when executed operable to receive first biometric data from the user (0023), extract a biometric pattern from the received first biometric data (0023), retrieve a profile of access rights associated with a reference pattern, if the biometric pattern matches the reference pattern (0024-0026, 0039-0040), retrieve second biometric data from the user (0025-0027), convert the second biometric data into a command (0027), compare the command with process data in a translation table according to the access rights of the profile (0027, 0056-0057), and if the command matches process data, send the process data to the controller to be processed by the automation application (0027-0030).
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, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharaman, USPN 2014/0230018 in view of Boesen, USPN 2021/0224371.
With regard to claims 1, 10, and 11, Anantharaman discloses the system of claim 9, as outlined above, and further discloses an initial authentication request with embedded biometric information (0026), and later authorization requests with embedded biometric information (0027, 0054-0055), that each type of command might require a specific authorization (0025 “A home device may only send one authorization request for each type of operation”), and using different types of biometrics (0023), but does not disclose that the second biometric data is different from the first biometric data. Boesen discloses a method for authorizing access to a controller using biometric information and user profiles (0004), similar to that of Anantharaman, and further discloses using a different type of biometric for different types of requests (0042, claim 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to use to implement the different types and levels of biometric authentication of Boesen in the authentication and authorization requests of Anantharaman, or for different types of authorization requests in Anantharaman, such as changing the channel or raising the volume (0057, 0069), for the motivation of improving control over more significant restrictions, while for less important restriction better managing processor load and network traffic, a stated motivation of Anantharaman (0023).
With regard to claim 2, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the biometric device compares the biometric pattern with reference patterns stored in a role database to determine the profile of access rights associated with the reference pattern matching the biometric pattern (0047, 0040, 0057).
With regard to claim 3, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the biometric device sends the biometric pattern to the controller that compares the biometric pattern with reference patterns stored in a role database to determine the profile of access rights associated with the reference pattern matching the biometric pattern and to send the profile of access rights to the biometric device (0047, 0067, 0070, 0073-0075).
With regard to claim 4, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the set of communication devices contains I/O modules (0047).
With regard to claim 5, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the automation application selects instructions corresponding to the process data and sends sending the instructions to a communication device to perform a function associated with the instruction (0027, 0032).
With regard to claim 6, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the first biometric and the second biometric data comprise voice data, video data, or gesture data (0010, 0022, 0023, 0033, 0090).
With regard to claim 7, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the first biometric and the second biometric data include data related to user action on a touchscreen, including data related to the type of movement of a finger, duration of hold, and pressure of the finger while generating a touch event on the touchscreen (0002, 0022-0023, 0100).
With regard to claim 8, Anantharaman in view of Boesen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Anantharaman further discloses the translation table includes commands respectively associated with process data, wherein the process data are defined in a language directly understandable by the controller (0026-0027, 0056-0057).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous rejection. This argument was persuasive and thus a new rejection with a new reference was added as outlined above.
Applicant further argues, “Claims 2-11 depend from allowable independent claim 1, and therefore are also in condition for allowance at least due to their respective dependencies therefrom.” The examiner points out that claim 9 does not depend on claim 1, and was not amended in the same manner as claim 1, and thus is still rejected in the same manner as in the non-final rejection.
References Cited
Anderson et al., USPN 2017/0091433, discloses a method of biometric authentication, where a profile dictates the type of biometrics needed to authenticate a user (0057), but bases this determination on the user and not the command type (0057).
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 JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571-272-3811. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434