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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of March 9, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”), with claims 1-14 being withdrawn. Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on May 21, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 15 and 20; canceling claims 1-14; and adding new claims 21-34.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 15-34 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §102/103
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the Amendment.
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
It is not understood how the recited resting heart rate can be within a given range for a given amount of detected motion as a resting heart rate is by definition a user's heart rate when the user is resting (i.e., not in motion). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume the "given amount of detected motion" is zero because it corresponds to a resting heart rate.
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.
Claims 15, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"):
Regarding claim 15, Just discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations (memory 208 including algorithm/instructions and processor(s) 204 in wearable system 200 of Figure 20 and [0155]) comprising:
receiving biometric information of a user collected from a biometric sensor ([0155]-[0176] and Figure 20 discuss/illustrate biometric/physiological sensors 202 collecting biometric/physiological signals such as heart rate/heartbeat; also, [0019] discloses a physiological/biometric sensor) of an earpiece to be worn in an ear of the user ([0074], [0079], [0082], [0157] discloses how the wearable system can be embedded in an earbud/earpiece);
receiving environmental information collected from an environmental sensor of the earpiece ([0155], [0157], [0172]-[0175] disclose how the wearable can include environmental sensors 202 collecting environmental information; also, [0019] discloses an environmental sensor for measuring environmental conditions in the vicinity of a subject);
… correlating the biometric information collected from the ear to a profile of the user stored in a data structure ([0161] discloses how the biometric information (such as heartbeat, etc. which is collected from the ear of the user per at least [0036], [0082]) for a particular person can be monitored for trends over time which would require correlation of received biometric information of the particular person/user to some profile of the particular person/user stored in a data structure in memory);
controlling a system, via the earpiece, based on … an environmental condition determined from the environmental information ([0175] discloses how wearable system 200 (which includes earbud/earpiece as noted above) can analyze biometric sensor data such as vital signs and light exposure from light exposure sensor 202 (environmental condition determined from environmental information) and then trigger (control) one or more lights/lighting systems to realize the subject's optimum light exposure).
However, Just appears to be silent regarding authenticating the user based on correlating the biometric information collected from the ear to a profile of the user stored in a data structure such that controlling of the system is also based on the authentication of the user.
Nevertheless, Tharappel teaches ([0018]) that it was known in the wearable device art for a wearable device (e.g., including earpiece per Figure 3A) to sense biometric input data of a user (e.g., pulse rate, etc.)([0034]), authenticate the user based on comparing/correlating the sensed biometric input data to a stored biometric credentials (profile) of the user ([0077]), and to control other electronic devices based on the authentication ([0026]) to advantageously prevent illicit/unauthorized use of the wearable device and allow a single authentication to access/control multiple devices thereby avoiding the burden of multiple authentications on multiple devices ([0022]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have authenticated the user based on correlating the biometric information collected from the ear to a profile of the user stored in a data structure such that controlling of the system is also based on the authentication of the user in the system of Just as taught by Tharappel to advantageously prevent illicit/unauthorized use of the wearable device and allow a single authentication to access/control multiple devices thereby avoiding the burden of multiple authentications on multiple devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 18, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, further including wherein controlling the system includes sending a command to at least one of turn on a light or open a garage door ([0175] of Just discusses triggering lights/lighting systems (turning them on)).
Regarding claim 21, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding the operations further including receiving a voice command of the user, wherein the system is controlled based on the voice command.
Nevertheless, Tharappel teaches ([0041]) that it was known in the wearable device art for a wearable device (e.g., including earpiece per Figure 3A) to sense biometric input data of a user (e.g., pulse rate, etc.)([0034]), authenticate the user based on comparing/correlating the sensed biometric input data to a stored biometric credentials (profile) of the user ([0077]), and to control other electronic devices based on the authentication ([0026]) using voice commands of the user ([0041]) which would advantageously allow the user to control the other electronic devices while freeing up use of the user's hands for other tasks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of the Just/Tharappel combination to be controlled based on received voice commands of the user as taught by Tharappel to advantageously allow the user to control the other electronic devices while freeing up use of the user's hands for other tasks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 24, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, further including wherein the biometric information includes at least one of heart rate, blood pressure, or temperature of the user ([0082], [0092], [0102] of Just disclose heart rate, BP, and subject temperature).
Regarding claim 26, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, the operations further including sending biofeedback determined from the biometric information and the environmental condition wirelessly to a communication device ([0176] of Just discloses how a user can be notified (e.g., wirelessly per at least [0080]) via a remote UI 212 to move to a different location to receive an appropriate environmental exposure dose in the context of biometric sensor information (where the amount of environmental exposure would be measured by the environmental sensors 202 of the wearable device and the biometric information would be measured by the physiological/biometric sensors 202 of the wearable device per [0155]); the notification to the user is "biofeedback" determined from (e.g., based on) the biometric information and environmental condition).
Regarding claim 27, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, further including wherein the earpiece includes a gesture control sensor that detects a gesture of the user ([0021]-[0022], [0167] discloses how the wearable monitoring devices (earpiece per [0074], [0079], [0157]) can include sensors 202 for sensing gesture).
Regarding claim 29, Just discloses an earpiece to be worn in an ear of a user ([0074], [0079], [0082], [0157] discloses a wearable system embedded in an earbud/earpiece), comprising:
a biometric sensor to collect biometric information from an ear of a user ([0155]-[0176] and Figure 20 discuss/illustrate biometric/physiological sensors 202 collecting biometric/physiological signals such as heart rate/heartbeat; also, [0019] discloses a physiological/biometric sensor);
an environmental sensor to collect environmental information from the ear ([0155], [0157], [0172]-[0175] disclose how the wearable (part of an earbud/earpiece per ([0074], [0079], [0082], [0157]) can include environmental sensors 202 collecting environmental information; also, [0019] discloses an environmental sensor for measuring environmental conditions in the vicinity of a subject); and
one or more processors ([0079], [0155] disclose how the wearable (part of an earbud/earpiece per ([0074], [0079], [0082], [0157]) includes at least one processor).
The remaining limitations of claim 29 are disclosed by the Just/Tharappel combination as discussed above in relation to claim 15.
Regarding claim 34, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the earpiece of claim 29, further including wherein the biometric information includes at least one of a heart rate, blood pressure, or temperature of the user ([0082], [0092], [0102] of Just disclose heart rate, BP, and subject temperature).
Claims 16, 17, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0073907 to Purves et al. ("Purves"):
Regarding claim 16, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding
wherein controlling the system includes retrieving search results.
Nevertheless, Purves teaches that it was known in the wearable device art for biometric sensor(s) of a wearable device to collect biometric information (e.g., heart rate, brain activity, eye patterns, etc.) of a user ([0063]-[0064] and Figure 1b), for environmental sensor(s) of wearable device collecting environmental information (e.g., temperature, humidity, location, etc.) of the user ([0063]-[0064]), and to control a merchant system to take one or more actions (e.g., increase AC output, transmit coupon for drink, inform merchant agent to help at cash register, etc.) based on biometric information (e.g., biometric values exceeding some threshold or behaving in a particular pattern ("biofeedback") and environmental information (e.g., temperature/humidity rising to a particular level ("environmental condition") from the wearable device ([0069]-[0072]), where controlling the system includes searching for and pushing relevant offers ("search results") to the wearable device based on biological reactions sensed by the sensors and user location at particular stores and/or in particular sections of a store (which is determined by GPS sensor and is an "environmental condition"))(Figures 1C-2, 1C-3 and [0074]-[0076]). This arrangement advantageously and automatically provides relevant search results/offers to the user without the user having to manually obtain such search results/offers thereby improving user experiences.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for controlling the system in the Just/Tharappel combination to include retrieving search results as taught by Purves to advantageously and automatically provides relevant search results/offers to the user without the user having to manually obtain such search results/offers thereby improving user experiences. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 17, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding wherein controlling the system includes performing a mobile commerce transaction.
Nevertheless, Purves teaches that it was known in the wearable device art for biometric sensor(s) of a wearable device to collect biometric information (e.g., heart rate, brain activity, eye patterns, etc.) of a user ([0063]-[0064] and Figure 1b), for environmental sensor(s) of wearable device collecting environmental information (e.g., temperature, humidity, location, etc.) of the user ([0063]-[0064]), and to control a merchant system to take one or more actions (e.g., increase AC output, transmit coupon for drink, inform merchant agent to help at cash register, etc.) based on biometric information (e.g., biometric values exceeding some threshold or behaving in a particular pattern ("biofeedback") and environmental information (e.g., temperature/humidity rising to a particular level ("environmental condition") from the wearable device ([0069]-[0072]), where controlling the system includes facilitating a purchase order transmission ("mobile commerce transaction") based on GPS location/environmental context of the user (e.g., in store, doctor's office, etc. which is an "environmental condition") and biometric information of the user to confirm authenticity of the user) ([0337], [0339]). This arrangement advantageously facilitates purchase order transactions of the user such as by automatically selecting and completing fields of the transaction based on the context.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for controlling the system in the Just/Tharappel combination to include performing a mobile commerce transaction as taught by Purves to advantageously facilitate purchase order transactions of the user such as by automatically selecting and completing fields of the transaction based on the context. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 33, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the earpiece of claim 29, but appears to be silent regarding wherein authenticating the user enables a payment system to perform a mobile commerce transaction with the earpiece.
Nevertheless, Purves teaches that it was known in the wearable device art to authenticate a user for access to virtual wallet features of a WIVD/wearable device ([0363], where the wearable device can be placed into a wearer's ears per [0006]), and then utilize the WIVD/wearable device to initiate a payment/purchase transaction with a PoS client/merchant server which forwards a card authorization request to an appropriate payment network for payment processing ([0365]) (perform a mobile commerce transaction). This arrangement advantageously improves the efficiency of communicating the purchase transaction request, and may also advantageously improve the privacy protections provided to the user and/or merchant ([0350]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the user authentication of the Just/Tharappel combination to enable a payment system to perform a mobile commerce transaction with the earpiece as taught by Purves to advantageously improve the efficiency of communicating the purchase transaction request, and may also advantageously improve the privacy protections provided to the user and/or merchant. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0010456 to Goldstein et al. ("Goldstein"):
Regarding claim 19, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding correlating a voice of the user, picked up by the environmental sensor, with bone conduction of the user picked up by the biometric sensor.
Nevertheless, Goldstein teaches (Figures 1-2, [0007]-[0008], [0031]-[0033], [0037], [0049]-[0051]) that it was known in the voice recognition and control art to correlate/mix a voice of the user picked up by an ambient sound (environmental) microphone 111 with internal sound waves generated via bone conduction captured by an ear canal microphone 123 (biometric sensor) to advantageously isolate the user's voice from one or more other voices in the user's proximity thereby facilitating voice control of one or more systems ([0003]-[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have correlated the voice of the user picked up by the environmental system in the system of the Just/Tharappel combination with bone conduction of the user picked up by the biometric sensor as taught by Goldstein to advantageously isolate the user's voice from one or more other voices in the user's proximity thereby facilitating voice control of one or more systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0332532 to Lee et al. ("Lee"):
Regarding claim 20, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the system is controlled based on verification of a sound pressure level.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches that it was known in the wearable device/mobile terminal art for a controller 180 of a mobile/wearable terminal 100 (Figure 1A and [0186]) to authenticate a user by comparing the volume (sound pressure level) of the user's received voice to that of an authorized pre-stored voice (i.e., verification of a sound pressure level) and then controlling a vehicle 500 (system) based on the authentication/verification which advantageously prevents arbitrary control of the vehicle/system by unauthorized third parties ([0455], [0460]-[0462]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of the Just/Tharappel combination to be controlled based on verification of a sound pressure level as taught by Lee to advantageously prevent arbitrary control of the system by unauthorized third parties. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 25, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the environmental information includes a sound pressure level of at least one of a voice of the user or ambient noise in an environment of the user.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches that it was known in the wearable device/mobile terminal art for a controller 180 of a mobile/wearable terminal 100 (Figure 1A and [0186]) to authenticate a user by comparing the volume (sound pressure level) of the user's received voice to that of an authorized pre-stored voice (i.e., verification of a sound pressure level) and then controlling a vehicle 500 (system) based on the authentication/verification which advantageously prevents arbitrary control of the vehicle/system by unauthorized third parties ([0455], [0460]-[0462]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the environmental information of the Just/Tharappel combination to includes a sound pressure level of a voice of the user as taught by Lee to advantageously facilitate authentication of the user thereby preventing arbitrary control of the system by unauthorized third parties. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0215968 to Rodwell et al. ("Rodwell"):
Regarding claim 22, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, further including wherein the biometric sensor comprises an ear canal microphone that detects an acoustic … of the user ([0082] of Just discloses how the ear provides a good location for monitoring internal sounds which would necessarily be via an ear canal microphone that detects internal sounds/acoustics of the user), and wherein the environmental sensor comprises an ambient microphone that detects noise in an environment of the user ([0011], [0095], [0109] of Just discloses how one of the environmental conditions (which is measured in the vicinity of the user/subject by the environmental sensor per [0019] of Just) can be ambient sound).
However, the Just/Tharappel combination might be silent regarding the ear canal microphone specifically detecting an acoustic signature of the user.
Nevertheless, Rodwell ([0055] and Figure 1) teaches that it was known in the wearable device art for a microphone 32 of an earpiece of a mobile device to detect a breathing signature of a user to advantageously provide for enhanced, truly personal, and continuous user-based authentication ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ear canal microphone of the Just/Tharappel combination to specifically detect an acoustic signature of the user as taught by Rodwell to advantageously provide for enhanced, truly personal, and continuous user-based authentication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 23, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the biometric information includes an acoustic signature of at least one of chewing, swallowing, or breathing of the user.
Nevertheless, Rodwell ([0055] and Figure 1) teaches that it was known in the wearable device art for a microphone 32 of an earpiece of a mobile device to detect a breathing signature (acoustic signature) of a user to advantageously provide for enhanced, truly personal, and continuous user-based authentication ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the biometric information of the Just/Tharappel combination to include an acoustic signature of at breathing of the user as taught by Rodwell to advantageously provide for enhanced, truly personal, and continuous user-based authentication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0075631 to Black et al. ("Black"):
Regarding claim 28, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 15, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the earpiece includes a fingerprint sensor that detects a fingerprint of the user.
Nevertheless, Black teaches (Figures 1A-1B and [0049]-[0051]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a headset/earpiece to include a fingerprint sensor 14A-14B to advantageously facilitate authentication of user identity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the earpiece of the Just/Tharappel combination to include a fingerprint sensor that detects a fingerprint of the user to advantageously facilitate authentication of user identity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 30 and 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0333414 to Kursun ("Kursun"):
Regarding claim 30, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the earpiece of claim 29, but appears to be silent regarding wherein authenticating the user includes utilizing the biometric information and the environmental condition to confirm that the user fits the profile to within a predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Kursun teaches that it was known in the user authentication art to authenticate a user (via mobile device per [0096]) based on both biometrics characteristics and environmental conditions ([0060]) including developing user profiles including biometric information and environmental/behavioral conditions ([0155], [0206]-[0207], [0241]), receiving authentication data including both biometric and environmental data ([0055]), calculating a confidence score for each of the profiles ([0055]), and determining whether the confidence scores meet respective selected thresholds for the profiles ([0055]). This arrangement advantageously allows for customization of authentication algorithms for various different profiles depending upon various particular contexts and the like ([0059]-[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the user authentication of the Just/Tharappel combination to include utilizing the biometric information and the environmental condition to confirm that the user fits the profile to within a predetermined threshold as taught by Kursun to advantageously allow for customization of authentication algorithms for various different profiles depending upon various particular contexts and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 32, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the earpiece of claim 29, but appears to be silent regarding authenticating the user includes determining a sound pressure level of at least one of a voice of the user or ambient noise in an environment of the user is within a given range.
Nevertheless, Kursun teaches ([0146], [0155], [0176]) that it was known in the user authentication art for a mobile device to authenticate a user based on determining that a background noise level (an environmental sound pressure level) is not anomalous (which corresponds to such background noise level being within a given range) which advantageously inhibits unauthorized/fraudulent use of the mobile device ([0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the user authentication of the Just/Tharappel combination to include determining a sound pressure level of at least one of a voice of the user or ambient noise in an environment of the user is within a given range as taught by Kursun to advantageously inhibit unauthorized/fraudulent use of the mobile device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0119314 to Just et al. ("Just") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0186636 to Tharappel et al. ("Tharappel"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0051191 to Miller et al. ("Miller"):
Regarding claim 31, the Just/Tharappel combination discloses the earpiece of claim 29, but appears to be silent regarding wherein authenticating the user includes determining a resting heart rate of the user is within a given range for a given amount of detected motion.
Nevertheless, Miller teaches ([0095]) that it was known in the wearable device and healthcare informatics art for a wearable device to authenticate unique biometric data of the user such as a resting heart rate which would necessarily involve receiving a current resting heart rate of the user and comparing to a stored resting heart rate of the user (given range) to authenticate the user, where a given amount of detected motion is zero as it is a resting heart rate. Authenticating a user based on a resting heart rate provides an effective manner of authentication that is resistant to spoofing and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authenticating the user in the Just/Tharappel combination to include determining a resting heart rate of the user is within a given range for a given amount of detected motion as taught by Miller to provide an effective manner of authenticating a user that is resistant to spoofing and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights