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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/31/25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits unless noted on the PTO-892.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8 and 10-12 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.
Claim 8 discloses that the media data, obtained via an imaging sensor according to claim 1, is one of image data, video data, audio data, a three-dimensional representation of movement of an object and text-based media data. It can be understood that an “image sensor” would capture image data or video data, but it is unclear if it is meant to obtain the audio data, a three-dimensional representation of movement of an object and text-based media data. Especially when the specification appears to state that those originate from microphones, 3D scanners or text acquisition systems (see paragraph 63). Therefore the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “obtain, via an interface, media data”, but claim 1 already recites “obtain media data via the imaging sensor”. Therefore it’s unclear if the media data obtained in claim 10 is the same media data already obtained according to claim 1 and the interface is meant to replace the sensor (which raises issues under 112(d) addressed below), or if this is supposed to be additional media data being obtained.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon claim 10, rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “obtain, via an interface, media data”, but claim 1 already recites “obtain media data via the imaging sensor”. Therefore it’s would appear that claim 10 is an attempt to replace the imaging sensor of claim 1 with an interface. As a result, claim 10 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon claim 10, rejected above.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Enhancing TOTP Protocol By Embedding Current GPS Location” to Abdurrahman et al. (herein after “Abdurrahman”) in view of US 2022/0253516 to Chung.
Regarding claim 1, Abdurrahman discloses a camera device for re-identification comprising an imaging sensor and processing circuitry (Section II(A), Figs. 5 and 6, wherein the combination of processing circuitry and camera/imaging sensor in the user’s phone and servers make up the device as claimed) configured to:
obtain media data Section II (A), wherein during registration a user provides their name and password/PIN (see also Section III (A-B)) corresponding to text-based media data);
generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data using a hashing algorithm (Section II(A); and Section III (A-B); wherein a shared key/code is generated to represent the user name and password/PIN using an encryption/hash algorithm and stored in the client device as well as on a server side for authentication);
transform the re-identification code using a transformation functionality to obtain a transformed re-identification code (Section II(B) and Fig. 5, wherein during authentication the shared key (re-ID code) is transformed using timestamp and location parameters to obtain transformed re-identification code (T1)),
wherein the transformation functionality is configured to transform the re-identification code such that, if the re-identification code is similar to a further re-identification code generated by the hashing algorithm according to a similarity metric, the transformed re-identification code is similar to a further transformed re-identification code being a transformed version of the further re-identification code, wherein the transformation functionality is configured to transform the re-identification code based on a transformation parameter, the transformation parameter being dependent on a time AND/OR a location (Section II(B), wherein the shared key (re-ID code) is transformed using HMAC-SHA1 transformation functionality with timestamp and location parameters to obtain transformed re-identification codes (T1 and T2) on both the client device and the server device respectively. Therefore, if the shared key (re-ID code) stored on the server side is similar to the shared key (re-ID code) further submitted for authentication from a user/client device, then the transformed keys will also be similar, verifying authentication); and
provide the transformed re-identification code (Section II(B) and Figs. 5, 6, wherein the transformed key (Token T1) is provided to the server (S1) for comparison with token T2)).
Abdurrahman does not disclose expressly that the media data is obtain using the imaging sensor.
Chung discloses a camera device for re-identification comprising an imaging sensor and processing circuitry (Fig. 3, paragraph 72) configured to obtain media data via the image sensor (paragraph 68) and generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data using a hashing algorithm (Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 23, 91, wherein an image of a user’s biometrics correspond to media data obtain, that is used to generate an encryption key corresponding to generating a re-id code using a hashing algorithm).
Abdurrahman & Chung are combinable because they are from the same art of re-identification or authentication.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique of obtaining media data (biometrics) via an image sensor and generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data (biometrics) using a hashing algorithm, as taught by Chung, into the camera device for re-identification disclosed by Abdurrahman.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to simultaneously provide rapid and economic user authentication and signature functions using an encryption key with bio-information (Chung, paragraphs 17, 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chung with Abdurrahman to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 1, wherein the transformation parameter is dependent on a time, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adapt the transformation parameter according to a pre-defined time schedule (Abdurrahman, Section I, page 3, 1st paragraph, left column; Section II(B)(2), wherein a timestamp transformation parameter is used and adapted based on the Network Time Protocol, corresponding to a pre-defined time schedule).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to delete a previously used transformation parameter after adapting the transformation parameter (Abdurrahman, Section II(B) and Fig 5, wherein transformation parameters change with time and location therefore previously used parameters are discarded with each authentication request).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 1, wherein the transformation parameter is derived from a cryptographic secret (Abdurrahman, Section II(B) and Fig 5, wherein HMAC-SHA1 is a form of cryptography where transformation parameters are derived from a cryptographic secret).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 1, wherein the transformation functionality is configured to perform a non-linear transformation of the re-identification code (Abdurrahman, Section II(B), wherein the HMAC-SHA1 transformation functionality with timestamp and location parameters performs non-linear transformation of the shared key (i.e. re-ID code)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 6, wherein the transformation functionality is configured to perform the non-linear transformation using a machine-learning model (Abdurrahman, Section II(B), wherein the HMAC-SHA1 transformation functionality corresponds to a machine-learning model in the sense that it is a machine/algorithm that learns a hash by performing a non-linear transformation of the shared key (i.e. re-ID code) using time and location parameters).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 1, wherein the media data is one of image data, video data, audio data, a three-dimensional representation of movement of an object and text-based media data (Abdurrahman, Section II (A), wherein during registration a user provides their name and password/PIN (see also Section III (A-B)) corresponding to text based media data. Chung, paragraph 68, wherein an image of the users biometrics correspond to image data and voice correspond to audio data).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 1, wherein the media data is at least one of image data or video data (Chung, paragraph 68, wherein an image of the users biometrics correspond to image data).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain, via an interface, media data from one OR more media data generation devices being located at different locations (Abdurrahman, Section II (A and B), Fig. 5, wherein during registrations multiple user using different mobile phones/computers (i.e. media data generation devices) located at different locations provide their usernames and passwords/PINs (i.e. media data) for generation of shared keys that are provided to the server (S1) for further use in authentication based different transformation parameters associated with the GPS locations of the different computers during the authentication request).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses the camera device according to claim 10, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the transformation using different transformation parameters for the one or more media data generation devices being located at different locations (Abdurrahman, Section II (A and B), Fig. 5, wherein during registrations multiple user using different mobile phones/computers (i.e. media data generation devices) located at different locations provide their usernames and passwords/PINs (i.e. media data) for generation of shared keys that are provided to the server (S1) for further use in authentication based different transformation parameters associated with the GPS locations of the different computers during the authentication request).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Abdurrahman and Chung discloses a camera device according to claim 1. Abdurrahman further discloses a system comprising two or more camera devices (Section III(G)), wherein along with the primary camera device an alternative mobile device can be registered, that can when combined with the server, make up a system of two or more “camera devices”.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,078 in view of US 2022/0253516 to Chung.
Claim 1 of the present application compares to claim 1 of the 12,008,078 as indicated below:
Claim 1 of the Current Application
Claim 1 of 12,008,078
Notes
A camera device for re-identification comprising an imaging sensor and processing circuitry configured to:
An apparatus for re-identification, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
Slightly different, current application discloses a “camera device” comprising an imaging sensor
obtain media data via the imaging sensor;
obtain media data via an interface;
Slightly different, current application obtaining via an imaging sensor and prior application via an interface
generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data using a hashing algorithm;
generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data using a hashing algorithm;
Identical
transform the re-identification code using a transformation functionality to obtain a transformed re-identification code, wherein the transformation functionality is configured to transform the re-identification code such that, if the re-identification code is similar to a further re-identification code generated by the hashing algorithm according to a similarity metric, the transformed re-identification code is similar to a further transformed re-identification code being a transformed version of the further re-identification code,
transform the re-identification code using a transformation functionality to obtain a transformed re-identification code, wherein the transformation functionality is configured to transform the re-identification code such that, if the re-identification code is similar to a further re-identification code generated by the hashing algorithm according to a similarity metric, the transformed re-identification code is similar to a further transformed re-identification code being a transformed version of the further re-identification code,
Identical
wherein the transformation functionality is configured to transform the re-identification code based on a transformation parameter, the transformation parameter being dependent on a time and/or a location; and
wherein the transformation functionality is configured to transform the re-identification code based on a transformation parameter, the transformation parameter being dependent on a time,
Substantially Similar, also corresponds to dependent claim 2 of the current application
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate two transformation parameters for two points in time, and to gradually adapt the transformation parameter according to a pre-defined time schedule, the adaptation based on a linear interpolation between the two transformation parameters in between the two points in time; and
Extra limitation found in claim of 12,008,078 and corresponds to dependent claim 4 of current application.
provide the transformed re-identification code.
provide the transformed re-identification code.
Identical
USPN 12,008,078 does not disclose expressly the apparatus is a camera device comprising an image sensor that is used to obtain the media data.
Chung discloses a camera device for re-identification comprising an imaging sensor and processing circuitry (Fig. 3, paragraph 72) configured to obtain media data via the image sensor (paragraph 68) and generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data using a hashing algorithm (Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 23, 91, wherein an image of a user’s biometrics correspond to media data obtain, that is used to generate an encryption key corresponding to generating a re-id code using a hashing algorithm).
USPN 12,008,078 & Chung are combinable because they are from the same art of re-identification or authentication.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique of obtaining media data (biometrics) via an image sensor and generate a re-identification code representing at least a portion of the media data (biometrics) using a hashing algorithm, as taught by Chung, into the camera device for re-identification disclosed by USPN 12,008,078.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to simultaneously provide rapid and economic user authentication and signature functions using an encryption key with bio-information (Chung, paragraphs 17, 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chung with USPN 12,008,078 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
The limitations of claims 2 and 4 of the present application are also found as obvious variants in the limitations of claim 1 in USPN 12,008,078.
The limitations of claims 3 and 5-9 of the present application are found as obvious variants in the limitations of claims 2-7, respectively, in USPN 12,008,078.
The limitations of claims 10 and 11 of the present application are found as obvious variants in the limitations of claim 8 in USPN 12,008,078.
The limitations of claims 12-14 of the present application are found as obvious variants in the limitations of claims 9, 11 and 12, respectively, in USPN 12,008,078.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights