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 .
1. Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-22 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are amended as filed on 10/31/2025.
Claims 9 and 12 are canceled as filed on 10/31/2025.
Claims 21-22 are new as filed on 10/31/2025.
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 6-8 & 18-20 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.
More specifically, claims 6 & 18 contain the limitation “wherein the taps are inputted by a user using a plurality of input sources on the authentication device”. The plurality of input sources is unclear. Does the plurality refer to a system that utilizes multiple input sources on a single device (i.e. gesturing on the phone’s screen as well as the phone’s tactile buttons)? Does the plurality refer to system that utilizes multiple input sources to distinguish a single tap rhythm based on its different aspects (i.e. a touch sensor + an acceleration sensor)? Does the system utilize multiple fingers as separate input sources (applicant’s specification 0088-0089)? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as if referencing the different finger limitation. However, appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0153416 A1), in view of Hird (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2013/0326604 A1).
2. With respect to claims 1 and 13, Sanchez taught a method for performing user authentication (0002), comprising: obtaining an authentication request from a user, wherein the authentication request comprises an authenticating tap rhythm generated by the user using an authentication device (0134, where the request can be seen in 0073); in response to obtaining the authentication request: identifying the user entry from the user entry repository (0134, where the entry can be found in 0130, the new user) via comparing the custom user rhythm with the authenticating tap rhythm (0134. See also: 0144); making a third determination that the custom user rhythm matches the authenticating tap rhythm (0134); and in response to the third determination: approving the authentication request (0145).
However, Sanchez did not explicitly state obtaining a registration request from a user, wherein the registration request specifies a tap rhythm in a tap repository; making a first determination whether the tap rhythm exists in the tap repository; if the tap rhythm does not exist in the tap repository, making a second determination whether the registration request includes a custom user rhythm, wherein the custom user rhythm does not exist in the tap repository; generating a user entry using the registration request and the custom user rhythm, wherein the user entry is stored in a user entry repository, wherein the custom user rhythm is associated with the user via the user entry; confirming the user entry with the user. On the other hand, Hird did teach obtaining a registration request from a user, wherein the registration request specifies a tap rhythm in a tap repository (0028, where the tap rhythm can be seen in 0026); making a first determination whether the tap rhythm exists in the tap repository (0028); if the tap rhythm does not exist in the tap repository, making a second determination whether the registration request includes a custom user rhythm, wherein the custom user rhythm does not exist in the tap repository (0028, where adding the rhythm is given); generating a user entry using the registration request and the custom user rhythm, wherein the user entry is stored in a user entry repository, wherein the custom user rhythm is associated with the user via the user entry (0028); confirming the user entry with the user (0028, where the confirmation is given). Both of the systems of Sanchez and Hird are directed towards managing user authentication using rhythm and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Sanchez, to utilize specific rhythm based authentications, as taught by Hird, in order to provide a more reliable pattern match for a user.
3. As for claims 2 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 13 (respectively). In addition, Sanchez taught wherein the custom user rhythm comprises a sequence of taps, pauses, and time periods associated with each tap and each pause in the sequence (0134, where the pauses and time periods is inherently taught by the rhythm. See also: 0039).
4. As for claims 3 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 2 and 14 (respectively). In addition, Sanchez taught wherein the user inputted the custom user rhythm to the authentication device using at least one sensor configured to measure the taps and the pauses (0039, where the sensors can be seen in 0034).
5. As for claims 4 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 2 and 14 (respectively). In addition, Sanchez taught wherein the taps are inputted by the user using a single input source (0134, where the ring is a single input source).
6. As for claims 5 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4 and 16 (respectively). In addition, Sanchez taught wherein the single input source comprises a button (0041).
7. As for claims 6 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 2 and 14 (respectively). In addition, Hird taught wherein the taps are inputted by the user using a plurality of input sources on the authentication device (0026, where the multiple different fingers represent different input sources).
8. As for claims 7 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6 and 18 (respectively). In addition, Hird taught wherein the custom user rhythm specifies which of the plurality of input sources delivers each tap on the authentication device (0026, the different fingers).
9. As for claims 8 and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6 and 18 (respectively). In addition, Sanchez taught wherein the custom user rhythm is configured to require at least two input sources of the plurality of input sources used to generate the custom user rhythm (0034, where the different sources being used can be seen in 0039).
10. As for claims 21 and 22, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 7 and 19 (respectively). In addition, Hird taught wherein comparing the custom user rhythm with the authenticating tap rhythm comprises confirming that each tap of the authenticating tap rhythm is delivered using the same input source specified by the custom user rhythm (0026, where the two fingers are recognized as the respective same sources).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, in view of McClintock et al. (Patent No. US 10,587,594 B1), hereinafter McClintock.
11. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Sanchez did not explicitly state making a second determination that the registration request comprises a song title associated with a song included in a song repository; and in response to the second determination: generating a song tap rhythm based on the song, wherein the authenticating tap rhythm comprises the song tap rhythm. On the other hand, McClintock did teach making a second determination that the registration request comprises a song title associated with a song included in a song repository; and in response to the second determination: generating a song tap rhythm based on the song, wherein the authenticating tap rhythm comprises the song tap rhythm (2:63 to 3:15). Both of the systems of Sanchez and McClintock are directed towards managing user authentication using rhythm and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Sanchez, to utilize matching a tapped rhythm to a song, as taught by McClintock, in order to provide a more reliable pattern match for a user.
12. As for claim 11, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Sanchez did not explicitly state making a second determination that the registration request comprises an existing tap rhythm identifier associated with a tap rhythm included in a tap repository; and in response to the second determination: generating the authenticating tap rhythm using the existing tap rhythm. On the other hand, McClintock did teach making a second determination that the registration request comprises an existing tap rhythm identifier associated with a tap rhythm included in a tap repository; and in response to the second determination: generating the authenticating tap rhythm using the existing tap rhythm (2:63 to 3:15, where the songs are existing rhythms). Both of the systems of Sanchez and McClintock are directed towards managing user authentication using rhythm and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Sanchez, to utilize matching a tapped rhythm to a song, as taught by McClintock, in order to provide a more reliable pattern match for a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Weksler et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2015/0161369 A1), 00012 & figure 2.
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443