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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a portal manager to […]” and “a storehouse manager to […]” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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.
As to claim 1, claim limitations “a portal manager to […]” and “a storehouse manager to […]” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Paragraph [0045] of the specification as filed discloses that the components, including the portal manager and the storehouse manager, “may be embodied as hardware, firmware, software, or a combination thereof.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As to claims 2-14, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 1 discussed above.
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 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (hereafter referred to as “Krueger”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0122375 A1, in view of TONOGAI et al. (hereafter referred to as “Tonogai”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0196040 A1, and further in view of KLAPMAN (hereafter referred to as “Klapman”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0417249 A1.
As to claim 1, Krueger discloses a computing device for secure biometric data management (¶ [0093], “In some embodiments, fully encrypted biometric templates may be able to be transmitted securely between the user systems 10a-10n and the external device 24. In some embodiments, the external device 24 may be an external server.”; ¶ [0100], “Each user system 10, 10a-10n or the like may support the ability to store and/or compare fingerprint representations of the user against one or more biometric templates on one or more external devices 24.”), the computing device comprising:
a [component] to (i) receive a first biomatrix from a client computing device, wherein the first biomatrix comprises data indicative of one or more biometric marker scans associated with a user (¶ [0055], “The user system 10, or user device, may include one or more biometric sensors 12, one or more processors 14, one or more memories 16 and one or more communication devices 18. Generally, the one or more memories 16 store logic, that when executed by the one or more processors 14, cause the one or more processors 14 to activate the one or more biometric sensors 12 to scan an aspect of a user's physiology, and generate a unique and/or entropic representation of a biometric sample (e.g., fingerprint).”), (ii) determine a first set of biometric markers from the one or more biometric marker scans (¶ [0079], “Referring to FIG. 4, from the graph 64, one or more adjacency matrices 66 may be created. The one or more adjacency matrices 66 may include relative location information for one or more salient features in the image (e.g., fingerprint).”), and (iii) verify the first biomatrix using the first set of biometric markers based on a stored biomatrix (¶¶ [0097] and [0098]).
Krueger is silent on the component being a portal manager.
However, Tonogai discloses the component being a portal manager (¶ [0023], “Portal manager 108 connects to portal 121. It is responsive to commands received from portal 121 and relays patient biometric data to portal 121.”; ¶ [0025] “The device manager 109 receives, for example, biometric data from the devices and, after doing any local processing, provides it to portal manager 108 for delivery to portal 121.”).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Krueger in the aforementioned manner as taught by Tonogai in order to gain the benefits of a unified portal manager such as centralized governance and security.
Krueger discloses [performing a transaction] associated with the user in response to verifying the first biomatrix (¶ [0099], “In a step 320, the one or more compressed representations of the fingerprint feature vector may be used as part of one or more post-recognition operations. To that end, the user system 10a may be authorized to perform actions that may have been guarded via user authentication, for example.”), but Krueger and Tonogai are both silent on a storehouse manager to access secure data storage associated with the user in response to verifying the first [biometrics].
However, Klapman discloses a storehouse manager to access secure data storage associated with the user in response to verifying the first [biometrics] (¶¶ [0025], [0030], [0037], and [0102]).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Krueger and Tonogai in the aforementioned manner as taught by Klapman in order to gain the benefits of remote data storage such as storing files beyond the size limits on local devices while also maintaining the benefits of Krueger’s biomatrix-focused invention.
As to claim 3, Krueger discloses wherein to determine the first set of biometric markers comprises to select the first set of biometric markers based on a predetermined security policy (¶ [0095], “For example, in some embodiments, the biometric sensor 12a may be configured to capture one or more images of biometrics and/or biometric features in accordance with the present disclosure.”).
As to claim 4, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 3 above.
As to claim 5, Krueger discloses wherein the one or more biometric marker scans comprises a facial recognition scan, a first retina scan, a second retina scan, a first fingerprint scan, and a second fingerprint scan (¶ [0031], “The term “recognition” refers to the biometric recognition and the use of anatomical (e.g., fingerprints, face, iris, gait) and/or behavioral (e.g., speech) characteristics (i.e., biometric identifiers, biometric identifiers, biometric characteristics) for recognizing individuals.”; ¶ [0064]; ¶ [0095], “In a step 312, a first user may provide one or more biometric(s) (e.g., fingerprints) to the biometric sensor 12a of the user system 10a.”; wherein Krueger discloses facial recognition scans, retina scans, and fingerprint scans may be gathered in any number of “one or more biometric(s)” and therefore Krueger’s disclosure may be interpreted as disclosing a combination of a facial recognition scan, two retina scans, and two fingerprint scans as claimed).
As to claim 6, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above.
As to claim 7, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above. Furthermore, Klapman discloses wherein to access the secure data storage comprises to securely store a document in the secure data storage (¶ [0049], “The user content data is the data that a user would typically want to store on a data storage device, such as files including image files, documents, video files, etc.”).
As to claim 9, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above. Furthermore, Klapman discloses wherein to access the secure data storage comprises to authorize transfer of a secure document in the secure data storage to a third party (¶ [0058], “This may be desirable if the data storage device 1 is a shared resource and that a specific remote user 3 is only authorized to access a subset of user content data stored on the data storage device. For example, if the data storage device is partitioned to multiple volumes, it may be desirable to enable a physical access state for the data path 37 so that a specific remote user 3 can access a volume they are authorized to access. The data storage device may, at the same time, be configured to prevent that specific remote user 3 from accessing user content data in other volumes they are not authorized to access by ensuring the corresponding user content data remains encrypted by the cryptography engine 41.”).
As to claims 10-12, the claims are rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above.
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 7 above.
As to claims 14 and 15, the claims are rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 3 above.
As to claims 18-20, the claims are rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger, Tonogai, and Klapman as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Perlman et al. (hereafter referred to as “Perlman”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0237623 A1).
As to claim 2, Krueger, Tonogai, and Klapman are silent on wherein to determine the first set of biometric markers comprises to select a random set of the one or more biomarker scans.
However, Perlman discloses wherein to determine the first set of biometric markers comprises to select a random set of the one or more biomarker scans (¶ [0028], “The card 104 may be configured to communicate random subsets of the biometric data 106 each time the card 104 is queried by the external system or device 108.”; ¶ [0034], “Moreover, even if a thief were to use accomplices to pass an authentication process once against a machine, embodiments of the invention employ random sets of biometric data and, as such, it may be highly unlikely that the same accomplice can pass the authentication test again, whether with the stolen POS device or another device.”).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Krueger, Tonogai, and Klapman in the aforementioned manner as taught by Perlman in order to make it more unlikely that biometric authentication may be comprised repeatedly.
As to claim 16, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art identified of Choi et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0147549 A1, discloses wherein the authenticated offline copy comprises a digital watermark indicative of authenticity (¶¶ [0035] and [0063]), but is silent on wherein to access the secure data storage comprises to generate an authenticated offline copy of a secure document in the secure data storage. While Choi et al. may disclose generating an authenticated offline copy of a secure document, Choi et al. does not disclose the generating being done as part of accessing secure data storage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the discussion of Choi et al. above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is (571)270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET; Fridays from 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM ET and 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM ET; and Saturdays from 9:30 AM to 9:30 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
10/15/25