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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments have been considered. Specifically, applicant argues the newly added limitation requiring the source [of stimulation] being external to the authentication circuit.
To support the allegation, applicant points out that Cudak’s system includes “various peripherals such as a computer monitor 112, speaker 114, camera 116 and/or scent emitter 118, coupled to the server 102 and/or the client 102, for presenting stimuli, or for recording responses other than brainwave responses”. Thus, applicant concludes, the stimuli is presented by components of the stimuli-based authentication system itself rather than an external source.
The examiner appreciates applicant’s point of view; however, the examiner directs applicant’s attention to para 35 of Cudak, which expressly separate different parts of the system 100. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in the related text (e.g. para 35) the prior art expressly separates authentication apparatus 150 of a server 102 from other parts of the 100 system, such as scent emitter 118 or speaker 114, that would satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of devices offering the real-time environmental data surrounding the user and that are external to the system 102/150.
Moreover, the specification does not offer express definition of the authentication system (circuitry) nor does it provide limits (specific definition) on the interpretation of the source(s) external to the authentication device (circuit) providing the stimulation. Thus, even if Cudak did not expressly suggest system 100 having external stimulation sources, it would be reasonable to interpret any specific elements/subsets as different components external to the authentication device 102.
Consequently, upon the carefully considering applicant’s arguments in light of the prior art and the original specification, they are not found persuasive.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Cudak (USPUB 20170228526) in view of Tran (USPUB 20160065569).
As per claims 1 and 9, in Fig. 2-5 and the associated text, Cudak discloses an authentication circuit (Fig. 2-3) and method comprising: providing a stimulation to a user (step 402 and/or 504); receiving a brainwave field fluctuation of the user in response to the stimulation (step 404 and/or 506); comparing the brainwave field fluctuation to a predicted response; and authenticating the user based on the comparison (step 406 and/or 508-512).
As per the newly added limitations, Cudak teaches the stimulation provided by real-time environmental data in an environment surrounding the user (exposing the user to played audio and/or emitted scent, e.g., para 47).
Cudak does not expressly recite the brainwave field being electromagnetic field. However, in the related art Tran suggests such solution (electromagnetic signals related to the brain of a user, see para 4, 18-20, etc.) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application to combine Cudak’s and Tran’s invention given the benefit of customization and security.
As per the newly added limitations, Cudak teaches the stimulation provided by real-time environmental data from a source external to the authentication circuit (see Fig. 1 and para 35, for example.)
The discussion in para 20-21, 45, 37, 49, including Fig. 2-5 and the associated text, address the limitation of claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10 and 12.
As per claim 6 and 13, given no specific definition or functional [claimed] limitation of “a training stimulation”, in the broadest reasonable interpretation the stimulation taught by Cudak [as modified] meets the required label and, a skilled in the art would readily appreciate that computing devices operate on the stored/recorded data.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Cudak (USPUB 20170228526) in view of Tran (USPUB 20160065569) and Suh (USPUB 20180225437).
Cudak as modified teaches receiving the brainwave electromagnetic field fluctuation of the user in response to the stimulation as discussed above.
As per claims 4, 11 and 17, Cudak as modified does not teach the stimulation being from an electrode coupled to the user. However, stimulating with an electrode coupled to the user would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Suh (see para 5-9, for example) offering the benefit of biometric authentication.
Furthermore, as per claims 15-16 and 18-19, the limitations require “artificial intelligence assistant” facilitating the steps discussed above (stimulation, receiving response, comparing the response and authenticating based on the comparison), [Official Notice is taken] AI “assistants” have been old and well known in the art at the time the application was filed, and incorporating AI (or any other component) into Cudak’s as modified invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the predictable benefit of efficiency and customization.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Cudak (USPUB 20170228526) in view of Tran (USPUB 20160065569) and Hayes (USPN 11924205) or Pan (USPUB 20230290354).
One of the interpretations of the prompting the user with a training stimulation and recording a response of the user based on the training stimulation has been discussed above.
However, given the fact that Cudak’s as modified teaches prompted stimulation that results in the response of the user, the alternative interpretation where prior to implementing system, the system is trained based on the initial responses that are recorded in the initial storage for the purpose of more accurate evaluation would have been well known variant in the computing (e.g., machine learning, see Hayes’ claim 11 and 21 or Pan’s para 32) while offering the benefit of security and reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights