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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of the present application being a 371 of PCT International Patent Application No. PCT/SG2022/050847, filed on November 11, 2022, and claim priority and benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) to Singaporean Patent Application No. SG102021133475, filed on December 01, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 5/17/2024 has been reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 8-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 12 recites “A computer program element” (computer program). Computer programs, per se, are not in one of the statutory categories of invention because a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer – the computer program itself is not a process MPEP § 2106.
A computer program, at best, is a functional descriptive material per se. Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunctional descriptive material.” Both types od “descriptive material” are non-statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (discussing patentable weight of data structure limitations in the context of a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency) and >In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360- 61,31 USPQ2d *>1754, 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361,31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). See MPEP 2106.01.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 13 is directed to “A computer-readable medium”. The specification is silent with respect to the definition of a “computer-readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a “computer-readable medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OG 212 (26 Jan 2010). See MPEP 2111.01. Signals are nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, and as such is nonstatutory natural phenomena. See, e.g., In re Nuitjen, 500 F. 3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (slip. op. at 18) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”). Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that Applicant amend the claim by inserting the term “non-transitory” before “computer-readable” in the preamble of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Switalski et al. (US 2022/0048432 A1) with an EFD of 12/17/2019.
Regarding claim 1, Switalski teaches, “A method for authenticating a driver of a vehicle, comprising: sending a request to a mobile phone to provide a selfie of a user of the mobile phone by means of the mobile phone, wherein the mobile phone is registered to receive orders for transport tasks” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0272] discloses; “1) the ride share server sends a request to a driver's smartphone (the smartphone registered to the driver identity to carry out one or more of the following: [0273] a) capture a photograph of face) “determining a time the user takes to provide a selfie in response to the request” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0278] discloses; “The driver has a predetermined time period to carry out this identity authentication, for example, ten minutes”) “sending additional requests to the mobile phone to provide selfies by means of the mobile phone if the determined time exceeds a predetermined threshold with a higher frequency than if the determined time does not exceed the predetermined threshold” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established”) “and performing authentication of the user as legitimate driver using selfies provided in response to the additional requests” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company”).
Regarding claim 6, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mobile phone is registered under a user account to receive orders for transport tasks and the method comprises flagging the user account as suspicious if the determined time exceeds the predetermined threshold and sending additional requests to the mobile phone if the account is flagged as suspicious than if the account is not flagged as suspicious” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Paras. [0279] – [0280] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established then the frequency of checking diminishes again. This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company. 4) One sanction for persistent failure or these automated identity checks could be in the restrictions that the ride share server places on that driver identity for future ride sharing activity” Examiner interprets that adding sanctions to an account is the same as flagging the account as suspicious.}
Regarding claim 10, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, comprising sending an additional request after a predetermined request interval if the determined time does not exceed the predetermined threshold” (Switalski Pg. 22, Paras. [0271]-[0273] discloses; “More specifically, when a request is received by the ride share server from the passenger for the identity check, the following actions are carried out by the server. 1) the ride share server sends a request to a driver's smartphone (the smartphone registered to the driver identity to carry out one or more of the following: a) capture a photograph of face; Examiner interprets an identity request from a passenger to have the ability to occur when the time does not exceed a threshold.)
Regarding claim 11, Switalski teaches,” An authentication server configured to perform the method of claim 1” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company”).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Gupta et al. (“DriverAuth: A Risk-Based Multi-Modal Biometric-Based Driver Authentication Scheme for Ride-Sharing Platforms”, June 2019).
Regarding claim 2, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, comprising, if the determined time exceeds the predetermined threshold” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0278] discloses; “The driver has a predetermined time period to carry out this identity authentication, for example, ten minutes”). Switalski does not explicitly teach, “triggering the sending of an additional request at each of a set of predetermined events”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Gupta, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Gupta discloses “triggering the sending of an additional request at each of a set of predetermined events” (Gupta, Introduction discloses; “The proposal of DriverAuth- a multi-modal system that pro-actively verifies the drivers’ identity every time drivers accept a new ride-booking. The proposed mechanism collects three biometric modalities, e.g., swipe gestures, text-independent voice and face, while they interact with the dedicated driver-application, to verify the drivers’ identity” The accepting of a new ride-booking is interpreted to be a predetermined event. These limitations are deemed obvious by combining this limitation and the time threshold of Switalski.)
Switalski and Gupta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of authenticating ride-share drivers using biometric data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Gupta in order to request biometric authentication when a driver would like to be active and take ride requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalksi with the teachings of Gupta to ensure the drivers are authenticated before they have the ability to accept ride requests. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Gupta to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Switalski and Gupta teaches, “The method of claim 2, comprising avoiding triggering sending an additional request by the predetermined events if the determined time does not exceed the predetermined threshold” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established then the frequency of checking diminishes again” Examiner interprets “the frequency of checking diminishes” to be the same as avoiding the sending of requests”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Switalski and Gupta teaches, “The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined events comprises the user toggling an availability state for taking transport tasks from not available to available and/or the user having completed a transport task” (Gupta, Introduction discloses; “The proposal of DriverAuth- a multi-modal system that pro-actively verifies the drivers’ identity every time drivers accept a new ride-booking. The proposed mechanism collects three biometric modalities, e.g., swipe gestures, text-independent voice and face, while they interact with the dedicated driver-application, to verify the drivers’ identity” Examiner interprets “every time a driver accepts a new ride-booking” to be the same as being available for a ride and completing a transport task). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Gupta references in the rejection of claim 2, apply to claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 4 is met by Switalksi and Gupta.
Claims 5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Truong et al. (US 2017/0039890 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Switalski does not explicitly teach, “The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is in the range of 5 minutes to 30 minutes”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Truong, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Truong discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is in the range of 5 minutes to 30 minutes” (Truong, Pg. 6, Para. [0044] discloses; “For example, the communication 141 may specify that the driver has to perform the verification action 143 in a designated location (e.g., in a parking lot, at a particular address, etc.) and within a set parameter of time (e.g., within ten minutes, immediately, etc.))”.
Switalski and Truong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of authenticating ride-share drivers using biometric data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Truong in order to request biometric authentication even when a time threshold has not been exceeded. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalksi with the teachings of Truong to authenticate drivers even when they have not exceeded a time threshold as another layer of protection and incorporating an unpredictability element to authentication. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Truong to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Switalski and Truong teaches, “A computer program element comprising program instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1” (Truong, Pg. 3, Para. [0027] discloses; “Furthermore, one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Truong references in the rejection of claim 5, apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer program element in claim 12 is met by Switalski and Truong.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Switalski and Truong teaches, “A computer-readable medium comprising program instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1” (Truong, Pg. 3, Para. [0027] discloses; “Furthermore, one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Truong references in the rejection of claim 5, apply to claim 13 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer-readable medium in claim 13 is met by Switalski and Truong.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Trim et al. (US 2020/0169554 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Switalski does not explicitly teach “The method of claim 6, comprising flagging the account as suspicious if a number of passengers which report a different vehicle or a different driver for their rides than expected according to the user’s profile within a first predetermined period exceeds a first further predetermined threshold and/or comprising flagging the account as suspicious if the frequency with which different mobile phones have been used to register under the user account within a second predetermined period exceeds a second further predetermined threshold”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Trim, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Trim discloses, “The method of claim 6, comprising flagging the account as suspicious if a number of passengers which report a different vehicle or a different driver for their rides than expected according to the user’s profile within a first predetermined period exceeds a first further predetermined threshold and/or comprising flagging the account as suspicious if the frequency with which different mobile phones have been used to register under the user account within a second predetermined period exceeds a second further predetermined threshold” (Trim, Pg. 5, Para. [0057] discloses; “At 106 the configured processor determines a content subject matter of the suspicious input. Illustrative but not exhaustive examples of suspicious inputs include frequent transactions from the same user that are made in frequent, short periods of time, and associated with large deposits and withdrawals made in cash or by check in the case of financial accounts; numerous transactions that are initiated from different locations on the same day for the same account, particular for banking transactions below an established reporting threshold; inconsistent device usage, such as a log-in that is not from the usual or historic smart phone” Examiner interprets the disclosure from Trim to be the same as “flagging the account as suspicious if the frequency with which different mobile phones have been used to register under the user account”.)
Switalski and Trim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of authenticating and monitoring accounts for suspicious activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Trim in order to keep track of suspicious accounts based on the registrations and failures to authenticate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalksi with the teachings of Trim to ensure the security of the product for users by flagging suspicious accounts and requiring secure authentications. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Trim to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Westfield et al. (US 6,907,254 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Switalski does not explicitly teach “The method of claim 1, comprising sending the additional requests to the mobile phone with a minimum time buffer period between the sending of the additional requests”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Westfield, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Westfield discloses, “The method of claim 1, comprising sending the additional requests to the mobile phone with a minimum time buffer period between the sending of the additional requests” (Westfield, Column 5, Lines 15 – 19 discloses; “The system periodically, e.g. every 5-15 minutes, requests the phone to re-identify itself, and if the phone is turned on it responds by transmitting identification information, which can include its electronic serial number (ESN)…” Examiner interprets that it would’ve been obvious to combine the buffer period in requests from Westfield with the requests of Switalski in claim 1).
Switalski and Westfield are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of requesting phones for information at specified times. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Westfield in order to request information from a user/phone at specific time intervals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalksi with the teachings of Westfield to allow the user to complete their authentication without needing a human to send requests, and having a program send the requests at time intervals instead. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Westfield to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Switalski and Westfield teaches,“ The method of claim 8, wherein the time buffer period is in the range of 5 minutes to 30 minutes” (Westfield, Column 5, Lines 15 – 19 discloses; “The system periodically, e.g. every 5-15 minutes, requests the phone to re-identify itself, and if the phone is turned on it responds by transmitting identification information, which can include its electronic serial number (ESN)…” Examiner interprets that it would’ve been obvious to combine the buffer in requests from Westfield with the requests of Switalski in claim 1). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Westfield references in the rejection of claim 8, apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method of claim 9 is met by Switalski and Westfield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662