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 Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
please remove the “--" punctuation.
There are two claim 2 in the application. Please delete one of the claim and present it as a new claim number.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4 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. Regarding claim 3, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 4 recites the limitation "the same hardware add-on device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 recite(s):
An electromechanical system for proctoring online examinations, comprising:
--a User Registration Database;--
-- a Motion Capture Database; and
--a processor for validating the degree of similar of said Motion Capture Database to said User Registration Database.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a user registration database“, “motion capture database” and “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ behaviors during an examination.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – a user registration database“, “motion capture database” and “a processor”
The “a user registration database“, “motion capture database” and “a processor” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 5, 7 showing a general-purpose computer). Additionally, the limitation can also be interpreted as a field of use or technological environment that do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. For examples, claim 2-5 are directed to additional abstract idea for additional processing of the sensor data. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed et al US 20190392724
Claim 1: Breed et al provides a teaching of an electromechanical system for proctoring online examinations (see paragraph 87 providing secure environment without concern that the student may be cheating) comprising:
--a User Registration Database; -- (see paragraph 108 and 109 process of capturing student information/biometric as part of registering with the school)
a Motion Capture Database (see paragraph 335 for tracking motion of the finger, para 366 for tracking motion of the user’s head, paragraph 426 tracking motion of the student’s iris) ; and
--a processor for validating the degree of similar of said Motion Capture Database to said User Registration Database (see paragraph 237 comparing user’s current iris with the registered iris; paragraph )
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al US 20190392724 in view of DiRienzo US 20140236903
Claim 2: The Breed reference is silent on the teaching of: wherein said User Registration Database contains motion sensed computer input data according to the equation: DE = “
m
1
,
m
2
…
[
m
30
]
"
and said Motion Capture Database contains motion sensed computer input data captured from a cooperating motion sensor according to the same equation and collected during a proctored online exam.
However, the Direnzio reference provides a teaching of wherein said User Registration Database contains motion sensed computer input data according to the equation:
DE = “
m
1
,
m
2
…
[
m
30
]
"
(see FIG. 3 item 301EDx itmes)
and said Motion Capture Database contains motion sensed computer input data captured from a cooperating motion sensor according to the same equation and collected during a proctored online exam (see paragraph 146 different type of keystroke data and paragraph 619 and 621 for positive identification using a variety of sensor data).
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 modified the Breed reference with the feature of wherein said User Registration Database contains motion sensed computer input data according to the equation: DE = “
m
1
,
m
2
…
[
m
30
]
"
and said Motion Capture Database contains motion sensed computer input data captured from a cooperating motion sensor according to the same equation and collected during a proctored online exam; as taught by the Direnzio reference, by providing a secure identification via unobtrusive mean (see paragraph 137).
Claim 2: The Breed reference is silent on the teaching of:
a) creating a User Registration Database of two or more types of collected user-specific computer input motion sensed data according to the equation: DE = “
m
1
,
m
2
…
[
m
30
]
"
and affixing said database in dedicated hardware therefor;
b) connecting a Motion Capture Database to a computer input device and populating said Motion Capture Database with two or more types of collected user-specific computer input motion sensed data according to said equation; and
c) validating said Motion Capture Database against said User Registration Database using a compiler or processor.
However, the Direnzio reference provides a teaching of creating a User Registration Database of two or more types of collected user-specific computer input motion sensed data according to the equation: DE = “
m
1
,
m
2
…
[
m
30
]
"
and affixing said database in dedicated hardware therefor (see paragraph 146 using typing speed, the length of key held down);
connecting a Motion Capture Database to a computer input device and populating said Motion Capture Database with two or more types of collected user-specific computer input motion sensed data according to said equation (see paragraph 622 and 623);
validating said Motion Capture Database against said User Registration Database using a compiler or processor (see paragraph 619).
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 modified the Breed reference with the feature of a) creating a User Registration Database of two or more types of collected user-specific computer input motion sensed data according to the equation: DE = “
m
1
,
m
2
…
[
m
30
]
"
and affixing said database in dedicated hardware therefor; b) connecting a Motion Capture Database to a computer input device and populating said Motion Capture Database with two or more types of collected user-specific computer input motion sensed data according to said equation; and c) validating said Motion Capture Database against said User Registration Database using a compiler or processor; as taught by the Direnzio reference, by providing a secure identification via unobtrusive mean (see paragraph 137).
Claim 3: The Breed reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said motion data may be of two or more types up to thirty types.
However, the Direnzio reference provides a teaching of wherein said motion data may be of two or more types up to thirty types (see paragraph 146 using typing speed, the length of key held down).
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 modified the Breed reference with the feature of wherein said motion data may be of two or more types up to thirty types, as taught by the Breed reference, by providing a secure identification via unobtrusive mean (see paragraph 137).
Claim 4: The Breed reference provides a teaching wherein said User Registration Database and said Motion Capture Database are securely created within the same hardware add-on device for a standard computer (see paragraph 407 showing a secure environment with a standard computer. i.e: a laptop or smartphone)).
Claim 5: The Breed reference provides a teaching wherein comprising the further step of rendering said third database to a module having output to a user (see paragraph 102-103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715