Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATIONS - 35 USC § 112
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function are not present in the claim.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure`, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is: “means for delivering energy” in claim 13.
In this case, independent claims 14-21 and any related dependent claims that may apply or include limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,023,704.
As to independent claims 2 & 13, instant application discloses generating, using a sensor, biometric image data associated with a user; delivering energy to a body part of the user; receiving an indication of a response by the user to the energy delivered to the body part of the user, wherein the response engages a brain of the user; (U.S. Patent 11,023,704 - claim 2)
and authenticating the user based at least in part on the biometric image data and the indication of the response (U.S. Patent 11,023,704 - claim 12).
As to claims 2-12 & 14-21, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claims 2 & 13 and are rejected for the same reasons.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 2-4, 6-7, 9-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmann et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0276440) in view of GUPTA et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0097257) & VESHCHIKOV et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0138295)
As to claims 2 & 13, Strohmann discloses generating, using a sensor, biometric image data associated with a user ([0005] discloses the control system may be configured for controlling the ultrasonic sensor system to transmit ultrasonic waves and for receiving signals from the ultrasonic sensor system corresponding to ultrasonic waves reflected from a finger position on the platen. In some examples, the control system may be configured for obtaining fingerprint image data corresponding to the signals. [0011] discloses the method may involve controlling an ultrasonic sensor system to transmit ultrasonic waves and receiving signals from the ultrasonic sensor system corresponding to ultrasonic waves reflected from a finger positioned on a platen. In some such examples, the method may involve obtaining fingerprint image data corresponding to the signals. ); delivering energy to a body part of the user ([0005] discloses the control system may be configured for controlling the ultrasonic sensor system to transmit ultrasonic waves. [0011] discloses the method may involve controlling an ultrasonic sensor system to transmit ultrasonic waves.); receiving an indication of a response by the user to the energy delivered to the body part of the user ([0005] discloses determining a change in a force, or a result from the change in a force of at least a portion of the finger on the platen corresponding to the signals. [0007] discloses the control system may be configured for determining a finger action according to a detected finger force direction, detected changes of an overall finger force, and/or detected rate of finger force change. The finger may, in some instances, include one or more low force touches, an increasing finger touch force, finger tilt, a finger rotation, and/or series of alternating low force and high force finger touches. [0008] discloses the control system may be configured for estimating changes in finger temperature based, at least on part, on the signals. [0011] discloses the method may involve determining a change in a force, or a result from the change in a force, of at least a portion of the finger on the platen corresponding to the signals.),
Strohmann is silent to wherein the response engages a brain of the user; and authenticating the user based at least in part on the biometric image data and the indication of the response.
However, GUPTA discloses authenticating the user based at least in part on the biometric image data and the indication of the response. ([0061] discloses the spoof detection sensors described herein may be any type of sensor that can provide an indicator of liveness of the finger on the sensor. [0081] discloses a finger of a user is received at a contact layer of the fingerprint authentication system over a fingerprint imaging sensor and a spoof detector sensor. [0082] discloses an image of a fingerprint of the finger is captured at the fingerprint imaging sensor and data used to determine whether the finger is a real finger (e.g. liveness data) is captured at the spoof detector sensor. [0084] discloses a user authentication operation using the image of the fingerprint as captured by the fingerprint imaging sensor and the data used to determine whether the finger is a real finger as captured at the spoof detector sensor, wherein the user authentication operation is for authenticating a user. [0086] discloses a matching operation is performed comparing the image of the fingerprint captured at the fingerprint imaging sensor to a stored fingerprint image of an authenticated user and confirmation that the image of the fingerprint is from a real finger based on the data used to determine whether the finger is a real finger captured at the spoof detector sensor is performed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify (Strohmann)’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to authenticate the user based on both fingerprint image data and a liveness/real finger indication derived from the same finger interaction, thereby improving spoof resistance and making explicit use of both the biometric image and the response related indication in the authentication decision.
Strohmann in view of GUPTA is silent to wherein the response engages a brain of the user.
However, VESHCHIKOV discloses wherein the response engages a brain of the user. ([0011] discloses while the users biometric characteristic is still being scanned by the authenticating device, requesting the user to display a predetermined action by the portion of the user’s body to authenticating device; analyzing a response action by the user to the predetermined action. [0012] discloses the method may further include determining that the response action is performed by the user. Determining that the response action is performed by the user may further include determining that the predetermined action is performed by the user and not by an attacker manipulating the user. [0013] discloses while the user’s hand is still being scanned by the scanner, requesting the user to display a particular hand gesture to the scanner; analyzing a response hand gesture by the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify (Strohmann in view of GUPTA)’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to ensure that the detected response is an intentional, user performed response rather than merely a passive physical condition, thereby strengthening liveness assurance and confirming that the response is cognitively mediated or a response that engages the brain of the user.
As to claim 3, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the delivering energy to the body part of the user comprises delivering heat to the body part of the user. ([0079] discloses the ultrasonic sensor system may include an array of ultrasonic transducer elements and may be use as ultrasonic transmitters as well as ultrasonic receivers. [0011] discloses the method may involve controlling an ultrasonic sensor system to transmit ultrasonic waves and obtaining fingerprint image data corresponding to the signals.)
As to claim 4, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the sensor comprises ultrasound transducers. ([0079] discloses an array of ultrasonic transducer elements, such as an array of piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducers, an array of capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers.)
As to claim 6, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, GUPTA discloses detecting a real-time response to the energy delivered to the body part of the user. ([0081-0082] discloses during a single touch action an image of a fingerprint of the finger is captured and data used to determine whether the finger is a real finger (e.g. liveness data) is captured and that the captures are performed concurrently during the single contact.)
As to claim 7, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the response comprises a movement. ([0007] discloses the finger action may include one or more low force touches, an increasing finger touch force, a finger tilt, a finger rotation, and/or a series of alternating low force and high force finger touches.)
As to claim 9, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the generating biometric image data comprises generating fingerprint image data. ([0011] discloses obtaining fingerprint image data corresponding to the signals.)
As to claim 10, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 9. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the fingerprint image data represents a 3-dimensional ultrasound image of fingerprint layers. ([0151] discloses the ultrasonic sensor array may be used to acquire depth related (such as three dimensional or 3-D) image data within a finger and signals from deeper portions of a finger may be corrected accordingly for enhanced depth profiling, 3D imaging and user authentication. [0177] sub epidermal features that may be captured and imaging of sub epidermal features deeper into the finger.)
As to claim 11, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the authenticating is also based on a plurality of biometric measurements associated with the body part. ([0030-0031] discloses receiving bioimpedance measurements and estimating a status of one or more biometric indicators and that the one or more biometric indicators may include skin hydration level, skin oiliness level, skin dryness and/or skin elasticity.)
As to claim 12, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2 but is silent to wherein the method is performed by a mobile phone.
However, VESHCHIKOV discloses wherein the method is performed by a mobile phone. ([0015] discloses the scanner may be part of another device such as a smartphone.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify (Strohmann in view of GUPTA)’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide the same interactive biometric authentication functionality in a portable consumer device.
As to claim 14, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 13. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the means for delivering energy is further configured to generate the biometric image data. ([0011] discloses obtaining fingerprint image data corresponding to the signals. [0079] discloses ultrasonic transducer elements that may be used as ultrasonic transmitters as well as ultrasonic receivers.)
As to claim 15, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 13. In addition, VESHCHIKOV discloses wherein the response engages a brain of the user. ([0011-0012] discloses requesting the user to display a predetermined action. Analyzing a response action by the user and determining that the response action is performed by the user including not by an attacker manipulating the user. )
As to claim 16, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 13. In addition, VESHCHIKOV discloses a user interface configured to receive the response. ([0011] discloses analyzing a response action by the user. [0015] discloses the scanners may be connected to a connected to a user input device such as one or more of a keypad, smartcard reader, display, or touch screen.)
As to claim 17, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 13. In addition, Stohmann discloses a surface configured to receive the body part, wherein the means for delivering energy is configured to deliver energy to the body part when the body part is positioned on the surface. ([0011] discloses ultrasonic waves reflected from a finger positioned on a platen. [0130] discloses a finger of a user is positioned on a surface of the fingerprint sensor and positioned on an outer surface of a platen.)
As to claim 20, Strohmann in view of GUPTA & VESHCHIKOV discloses everything as disclosed in claim 13. In addition, Stohmann discloses wherein the means for delivering energy is configured to deliver light to the body part. ([0113-0114] discloses a light source system may be configured for illuminating the target object and the sensor pixels may be transparent partially transparent or substantially transparent, such that the apparatus may be capable of transmitting light from a light source system through elements of the ultrasonic sensor system. )
CONCLUSION
No prior art references have been found for claims 5, 8 & 18-19 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights