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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 8/11/2026, claims 1-19 and 28 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 28 are independent.
Amended claims: 1, 28.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 8/11/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Amended claims 1, 28 recite: “without requiring use of multi-factor authentication (MFA).” However, the claims recite two factors for performing the authentication: “obtaining source feature data of the user to be authenticated, and user attributes, wherein the source feature data represents a by the user performed time dependent movement, wherein the user attributes represent information of the user as extractable from sensor data.” Claim recites two factors for authenticating the user: “source feature data” and “user attributes”, however, the claim also recites “without requiring use of multi-factor authentication (MFA),” rendering the claim scope unclear as the use of two factors for authentication falls within MFA authentication. Note the cited art of record discloses at least two factors for authenticating the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 28 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. Amended claims 1, 28 recite: “without requiring use of multi-factor authentication (MFA).” However, the claims recite two factors for performing the authentication: “obtaining source feature data of the user to be authenticated, and user attributes, wherein the source feature data represents a by the user performed time dependent movement, wherein the user attributes represent information of the user as extractable from sensor data.” Claim recites two factors for authenticating the user: “source feature data” and “user attributes”, however, the claim also recites “without requiring use of multi-factor authentication (MFA),” rendering the claim scope unclear as the use of two factors for authentication falls within MFA authentication.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 13-19, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180145990 A1 (hereinafter ‘Hoover’).
As regards claim 1, Hoover (US 20180145990 A1) discloses: A method for authenticating a user for a service, the method being performed by an authentication system, the method comprising (Hoover: ¶3, ¶54, i.e., method and system for performing authentication to provide access to services/systems): obtaining source feature data of the user to be authenticated, and user attributes (Hoover: ¶3-¶4), wherein the source feature data represents a by the user performed time dependent movement (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶13, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85, i.e., receiving real time data from the user including, see step 411 in fig. 4, where the user performs time dependent movement), wherein the user attributes represent information of the user as extractable from sensor data, and (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85) wherein the source feature data and the user attributes are extracted from sensor data of the user as collected by at least one sensor device and (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
authenticating the user, without requiring use of multi-factor authentication (MFA), as a function of the source feature data and the user attributes, wherein the user is successfully authenticated when the source feature data fulfils an evaluation criterion with respect to target feature data, wherein the target feature data represents a, for the user and the service, expected time dependent movement, wherein the service is associated with an authentication purpose, and wherein the evaluation criterion is a function of the authentication purpose and the user attributes, and (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶3-¶6, ¶13, ¶25, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85, i.e., performing a multifactor authentication of the user based on position of the user and the movement performed by the user)
wherein the evaluation criterion corresponds to a security class that is based on at least one of: the type of event, service or application (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, i.e., the security level determines the level of authentication mechanism to be used; ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, i.e., event such as meeting invite; ¶80-¶85)
Claim 28 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 1 and is rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, upon having successfully authenticated the user: performing, for the user, an action relating to the service. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 3, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the action pertains to enabling the user to any of: change a computer system password, use the source feature data as a computer system password, gain access to a computer system, gain access to a computer file, gain access to a computer service, gain access to a building, gain access to a room in a building, or gain access to a vehicle. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶25, ¶54)
As regards claim 6, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, upon having failed to successfully authenticate the user: classifying the user as an unauthorized user. (Hoover: ¶161)
As regards claim 7, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the security class that is further based on at least one of: user input; or a machine learning, ML, model. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 13, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the source feature data is initiated upon receiving user input from the user to be authenticated. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 14, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein authenticating the user is performed using a machine learning, ML, model taking the source feature data and the user attributes as input. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 15, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the target feature data is obtained from training data of the user, wherein the training data is learned from further sensor data of the user as collected by the at least one sensor device prior to the source feature data based on which the user is to be authenticated, and wherein the training data is utilized for training of the at least one ML model. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 16, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein obtaining the further source feature data from which the training data is learned from is initiated upon receiving user input from the user to be authenticated, and wherein receiving the user input triggers training of the ML model. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 17, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein obtaining the further source feature data from which the training data is learned from is initiated upon the authentication system having prompted the user to perform an action based on which the further source feature data is obtainable. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 18, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the further source feature data only is obtained from the further sensor data upon the authentication system having received verification from the user. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
As regards claim 19, Hoover discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein there is only one single ML model for authenticating the user as a function of the source feature data and the user attributes. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of US 20180060547 A1 (hereinafter ‘Holz’).
As regards claim 4, Hoover in combination with Holz (US 20180060547 A1) teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, upon having failed to successfully authenticate the user: prompting the user to repeat the time dependent movement, and then repeating obtaining source feature data of the user and repeating authenticating the user based on a repeated time dependent movement of the user. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85. Holz:, ¶96, i.e., prompting the user to repeat the authentication process in case of failure)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hoover to include prompting a user to repeat the authentication process as taught by Holz with the motivation to ensure a user is properly authenticated (Holz:, ¶96)
As regards claim 5, Hoover et al combination teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein whether the user is prompted to repeat the time dependent movement or not is defined by the evaluation criterion. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85. Holz:, ¶96, i.e., prompting the user to repeat the authentication process in case of failure)
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of US 20220012323 A1 (hereinafter ‘Mori’).
As regards claim 8, Hoover in combination with Mori (US 20220012323 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication purpose is mapped to an integer n, where 1≤n≤N, where n=1 represents the authentication purpose with lowest security and n=N represents the authentication purpose with highest security. (Mori: Figs. 1, 6, ¶5, ¶34-¶35-¶39, i.e., varying authentication levels for performing varying levels of security operations from the highest to the lowest)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hoover to include varying authentication levels for performing varying levels of security operations from the highest to the lowest as taught by Mori with the motivation to provide a flexible use of authentication (Mori: Figs. 1, 6, ¶5, ¶34-¶35-¶39)
As regards claim 9, Hoover et al combination teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein n different comparisons are made between the source feature data and the target feature data for determining whether the source feature data fulfils the evaluation criterion with respect to the target feature data. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85. See also, Mori: Figs. 1, 6, ¶5, ¶34-¶35-¶39)
As regards claim 10, Hoover et al combination teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the user attributes is mapped to an integer t, where 1≤t≤T, where t=1 represents the user attributes with lowest security and t=T represents the user attributes with highest security. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85. See also, Mori: Figs. 1, 6, ¶5, ¶34-¶35-¶39, i.e., matching the different types of authentications to their thresholds)
As regards claim 11, Hoover et al combination teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein, according to the evaluation criterion, the source feature data must pass at least t out of the n different comparisons for the user to be successfully authenticated. (Hoover: Figs 3B, 4, ¶4-¶6, ¶13, ¶39, ¶54, ¶72-¶74, ¶80-¶85. See also, Mori: Figs. 1, 6, ¶5, ¶34-¶35-¶39)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of US 20160087952 A1 (hereinafter ‘Tartz’).
As regards claim 12, Hoover in combination with Tartz (US 20160087952 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein there are at least two sensor devices, and wherein the sensor data as collected by each of the at least two sensor devices is assigned a respective trust level dependent weight factor, and wherein the sensor data from the at least two sensor devices is weighted according to the respective trust level dependent weight factor when the source feature data and the user attributes are extracted from the sensor data. (Tartz: Figs. 4-5, ¶36-¶45, i.e., the sensors have trust levels which are associated with weight factor)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hoover to include sensors that have trust levels which are associated with weight factor as taught by Tartz with the motivation to provide a authentication processes that satisfy a security requirement (Tartz: Figs. 4-5, ¶6, ¶36-¶45, i.e., the sensors have trust levels which are associated with weight factor)
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 SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights