Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Th e present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 4, 6, and 17 are canceled and claims 1-3, 5, 7-16, and 18-23 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments regarding 112 have been considered as discussed below.
a) rejection of claims 3, 9, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis are withdrawn.
b) Rejection of claims 9-10, and 12-13 under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite are being maintained.
As stated previously the term “likely” render the claim indefinite since the specification does not provide/supply objective standard to examiner to define the scope of the claim. Applicant is welcome to either amend the claim or remove the subjective term or provide evidence that one ordinary skill in the art could define the meaning of the term when reading the disclosure.
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection discussed below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 9-10, and 12-13 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.
The term "likely" in claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term "likely" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for
ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised
of the scope of the invention. In claims 9 and 10 the term likely occurs in the limitation "determining a
likelihood that the sensor data indicates that the people are likely living humans" this term in claims 9
and 10 implies a threshold however, it is indefinite as to what this threshold is. It might be greater than
50% but may be a low value such as 30% for reduction of false positives for spoofing (for example if the
other access requirements of the system were considered sufficient to protect against false negatives
caused by this low threshold) or a high value such as 95% to provide improve protection of the system.
Claims 12 and 13 use the term "likely" in the limitation "determining whether each of the two or more
predetermined input actions were likely performed voluntarily". This limitation is indefinite for
substantially the same reasoning as claims 12 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application
for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by
Gay et al. (US 20140007225 A1), herein referred to as Gay.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Gay teaches:
determining, by a system (computer system in fig. 4 with processor and memory connected to
sensors and user input device) and using sensor data (paragraph 35, facial recognition to determine distinct users) i) captured by one or more sensors (Fig. 4 sensors which may include camera (see also paragraph 46)
and ii) that is different data than input data captured (paragraph 6, password) by one or more input
devices (see paragraphs 5, 24, 33, and 46 where it discloses sensor information including image,
proximity, voice, location, and time data. See also paragraph 47, and Fig. 4 input device 47 which may be
a key board), whether two or more people, who performed corresponding input actions in an environment
and during a time period, satisfies an access criteria (see paragraphs 5, 10-13, 24, 27, 37, and 41-43
disclosing Multi-user gesture authorization) a) for accessing a critical function (see paragraph 38, 44, and
45 where it discusses authorizing access to resources like launch control, door unlock. Access to sensitive
resources and functions) b) that require two or more predetermined input actions (predetermined gesture
and order. Also predetermined input actions could be entry of a password performed by two users);
determining, by the system using the sensor data, whether any other conditions, represented by second
data for the time period and environment, do not satisfy the access criteria, the other conditions being
different than the two or more predetermined input actions (see paragraphs 24, 45, and 46 where it
discloses ambient condition, location, time, and other context separate from gestures); performing, by the
system, an action for the critical function using a result of the determinations (access authorization and
other actions), (i) whether the two or more people, who performed corresponding input actions, satisfies
the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b) that requires the two or more
predetermined input actions, and (ii) whether any other conditions do not satisfy the access criteria (see
paragraphs 37, 45, and 46 disclosing multi-user gesture matching which also consider environment
conditions).
Regarding claims 2, and 15, Gay teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the action comprises providing access to the critical
function in response to determining that two or more people, who performed corresponding input
actions, satisfies the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b) that requires the two or
more predetermined input actions ([see paragraphs 11, 30, 31, and 37 disclosing once the at least two users are authenticated access to the critical function is granted. Granting access when gesture matches stored criteria).
Regarding claims 3, and 16, Gay teaches:
The method of claim 2, comprising determining that each of the two or more predetermined
input actions was performed by a different person from the two or more people who performed corresponding input actions, wherein performing the action is responsive to determining that each of the two or more predetermined input actions was performed by a different person from the two or more people who performed corresponding input actions (see paragraphs 27, and 28, user maybe authenticated or not; if unauthenticated users (presumed unauthorized/different from predetermined user) exist such that the threshold of authenticated users is not reached the process may continue to act 121 (see paragraph 32 in which the activity is updated to a history (log) (as an action that is triggered by the lack of authorized users. Also see paragraphs 13, 35, 37, and 42 disclosing determining that the users are distinct from each other and is tied to authorization).
Regarding claims 5, and 18, Gay teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein performing the action comprises sending an alert about the access to the critical function responsive to determining that two or more people, who performed corresponding input actions, does not satisfy the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b) that requires the two or more predetermined input actions (see paragraphs 30, 37, and 38 disclosing a notice (alert) with instructions to perform a gesture again may be sent to the users when corresponding gesture for an authorized user is not performed by said authorized user for the system, this means that at least one user did not satisfy the requirement by performing the appropriate gesture and therefore the number of people that successfully performed the predetermined input actions does not satisfy the requirement for access. Informing users if not authorized and rendering status information. It also discloses if the gestures do not match, the system inform the users that are not authorized).
Regarding claims 7, and 19, Gay teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether two or more people, who performed
the corresponding input actions, satisfies the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b)
that requires the two or more predetermined input actions comprises, comparing first image data
depicting a first person who performed a first input action with second image data depicting a second
person who performed a second input action by analyzing, using a facial recognition process, at least one of the first image data or the second image data (see paragraphs 5-6, 24-25, 30, 35, and 46 disclosing images of the first and second users may be compared to determine that they are distinct users. Facial recognition is listed as a user identification/authentication technique).
Regarding claim 11, Gay teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the two or more people, who performed
the corresponding input actions, satisfies the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b)
that requires the two or more predetermined input actions comprises determining whether a number of
input actions match the two or more people depicted in image data captured at one or more locations where the input actions were performed (see paragraphs 5, 24, 33, 37, and 42-43 disclosing analyzing whether users are distinct, are they located together or separately and matching the gestures to users. Number of input actions matches the people).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gay and
Vemulapalli (US 2023/0306789 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Gay teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the two or more people, who performed
the corresponding input actions, satisfies the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b)
that requires the two or more predetermined input actions comprises (paragraph 11 disclosing at least two users are authenticated):
Does not teach however, Vemulapalli teaches:
Determining a likelihood that the sensor data indicates that two or more people are likely living humans (Paragraph 3 of Vemulapalli discloses camera data recorded in response to telling the user to perform actions involving moving their head and changing their gaze and a likelihood that the user is a living person based on these movements is determined).
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 invention of Gay (which already has the user perform
motions as gestures and analyzes those motions) to determine that users are living humans by having
them perform specific presently requested motions as taught by Vemulapalli, in order to determine that
a prerecorded or previously generated (AI) video is not being played for or otherwise obtained by the
sensor.
Regarding claim 10, Gay in view of Vemulapalli teaches:
The method of claim 9 wherein determining a likelihood that the sensor data indicates that the two or more people are likely living humans uses an amount of movement of a corresponding object detected in the sensor data (Vemulapalli at paragraph 3 discloses camera data recorded in response to telling the user to perform actions involving moving their head and changing their gaze and a likelihood that the user is a living person based on these movements is determined (movement of head as movement of corresponding
object)).
The motivation to combine for claim 9 is the same motivation to combine for claim 10.
12. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gay in view of
Burris et al. (US 2020/0327755 A1), herein referred to as Burris.
Regarding claims 12, and 13, Gay teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the two or more people, who performed
the corresponding input actions, satisfies the access criteria a) for accessing the critical function and b)
that requires the two or more predetermined input actions comprises determining whether each of the
two or more predetermined input actions satisfies security requirements (Gay paragraph 23, entry of a
password, (paragraph 13, performed by two users, and users that performed the action are distinct and predetermined. Also see paragraphs 5-6, 24, and 46 disclosing image and voice/audio-related sensor data).
And wherein each of the one or more actions is each of the two or more actions
Gay does not teach that the actions was performed voluntarily, however, Burris teaches:
Actions being performed voluntarily (paragraph 52 discloses various examples of authentication inputs include PIN/access codes; further a second person may be required and might presumably be similarly
Authenticated, paragraph 50 discloses user is under duress can be determined for example based on eye-movement, voice pitch or visual agitation; assuming the user passed the duress determination of their authentication in would be determined to be likely performed voluntarily).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention
of use image or voice data such as eye movement data, voice pitch or visual agitation to determine that
input actions were performed voluntarily as taught by Burris in order to prevent a compromised person
who normally has access from providing an adversary direct or indirect access to the critical function
against their will.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. 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 Nasser Goodarzi whose telephone number is (571)272-4195. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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,
Colleen Fauz can be reached at (571)272-1667. 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.
/NASSER M GOODARZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights