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
This is the initial office action that has been issued in response to patent application, 18/793,001, filed on 08/02/2024. Claims 1-11, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 06/04/2025. The application claims the foreign priority of French Republic FR2308427 filed on 08/03/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbered labels shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the biometric datum” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitt et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0081145 A1, hereinafter, Pitt) in view of Chaskin et al. (US Patent No. US 7,527,192 B1, hereinafter, Chaskin) and further in view of Ohayon et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0054233 A1, hereinafter, Ohayon).
Regarding Claim 3, Karr discloses: The method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining, by the first storage array, a size of the first replicated data to result in a determined first replicated data size; determining, by the first storage array, a size of the second replicated data to result in a determined second replicated data size (Karr, ¶[0218], “The replica storage array ‘R’ may request a list of snapshots from the original storage array ‘O’ (block 1705). … R may receive basic information (e.g., size) about the desired medium ‘M’ from O (block 1720).”);
by the first storage array, first replicated data, second replicated data; first replicated data, second replicated data; by the first storage array to the second storage array; (Karr, ¶[[0385], “The storage systems described herein may support various forms of data replication. For example, two or more of the storage systems may synchronously replicate a dataset between each other.”)
Karr does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Danilov teaches:
determining, that the determined size exceeds the determined size by a disparity amount that exceeds a configured disparity amount specified by a criterion; and based on the determining that the determined size exceeds the determined size by the disparity amount, (Danilov, ¶[0026], “In an aspect, a mapped cluster control component, e.g., 220, etc., can allocate storage space of cluster storage component 102 based on an indicated level of granularity, an indicated storage device type, etc. In an aspect, the indicated level of granularity can be determined based on an amount of data to store, a determined level of storage space efficiency for storing data 104, a customer/subscriber agreement criterion.”)
transmitting, a disparity notification message comprising a disparity indication indicative of the disparity amount (Danilov, ¶[0081], “A user can enter commands or information into computer 1012 through input device(s) 1036. In some embodiments, a user interface can allow entry of user preference information, etc., and can be embodied in a touch sensitive display panel.”).
Karr in view of Danilov is analogous art because the references are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they pertain to the field of “data storage systems.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Karr with Danilov to
“determining, that the determined size exceeds the determined size by a disparity amount that exceeds a configured disparity amount specified by a criterion; and
based on the determining that the determined size exceeds the determined size by the disparity amount, transmitting, a disparity notification message comprising a disparity indication indicative of the disparity amount”;
because, one use of data storage is in bulk data storage, and data can conventionally be stored in a group of nodes format for a given cluster (Danilov, ¶[0002]).
Regarding Claim 1, Pitt discloses: A method implemented by a processing unit, comprising:
receiving a first biometric datum and a query asking whether the first biometric datum is referenced in a database (Pitt, ¶[0065], “database 1 220 receives biometric data from biometric node 210. … database 1 220 performs a query to determine whether the received biometric data is associated with a new user.”),
the database comprising reference biometric data associated with respective sets of random elements that are disjoint (Pitt, ¶[0052], “database 1 220 stores raw biometric data provided by a user in association with a biometric random key. Thus, the raw biometric data may be a fingerprint data set, retinal scan data set, or any other biometric data obtained by biometric input 110. Furthermore, biometric random key may be a globally unique identifier associated with the raw biometric data.”),
searching for a second biometric datum that corresponds to the first biometric datum among the reference biometric data (Application specification, page 10, line 1-5, defined “a reference biometric datum D' that corresponds to the first biometric datum will be called "second biometric datum".” Accordingly, the search for the second biometric datum is the search for the first biometric datum received. Therefore, Pitt teaches in ¶[0067], “database 1 220 performs a query to look up the corresponding biometric random key 210 using the biometric data received from biometric node 210.”); and
generating a response to the query, the response containing a random element satisfying the following conditions (Pitt, ¶[0068], “After storing the biometric random key in step 460 or looking up the biometric random key in step 470, exemplary method 400 proceeds to step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”):
when the second biometric datum is found in the search, the random element is an element from the set of random elements associated with the second biometric datum (Pitt, ¶[0068], “step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”),
the random element is different from a previous random element contained in a previous response to a previous query asking whether a previous biometric datum is referenced in the database, both when the previous random element is an element from one of the sets of random elements and when the previous random element does not belong to any of the sets of random elements (Pitt, ¶[0052], “biometric random key may be a globally unique identifier associated with the raw biometric data.”).
Pitt does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Chaskin teaches:
each set of random elements comprising a plurality of random elements (Chaskin, col 1, line 56-61, “generating the secure identification element from a database or random generation process of such elements.” Col 4, line 21-29, “Additional secure identification elements 20(a), 20(b), 20(c) . . . 20(n) may be generated by the system and stored in the database 28”);
Pitt in view of Chaskin is analogous art because the references are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they pertain to the field of “biometric data integrity.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pitt with Chaskin to implement
“each set of random elements comprising a plurality of random elements”;
because, the method provides a secure way to access personal information without divulging a user's identification number (Chaskin, Abstract).
Pitt in view of Chaskin does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Ohayon teaches:
when the second biometric datum is not found in the search, the random element does not belong to any of the sets of random elements associated with the reference biometric data (Pitt in view of Chaskin teaches the method of searching for a biometric datum, but not the explicit scenario of a query attack. Ohayon is not relied upon to teach searching for a biometric datum. Ohayon, ¶[0129], “[0129] The system may thus provide real-time attack detection, attack blocking, attack mitigation, and attack monitoring. … intentional modification or randomization of outputs (e.g., to counter-attack or to confuse an attacker)” ¶0132], “similarly … may protect ML/DL/AI Engines that receive (or that process, or that operate on) other types of data, for example, …, biometric data (e.g., fingerprint scan, retina scan, eye scan, face scan or facial image)”), and
Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon is analogous art because the references are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they pertain to the field of “data integrity.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pitt in view of Chaskin with Ohayon to implement
“when the second biometric datum is not found in the search, the random element does not belong to any of the sets of random elements associated with the reference biometric data”;
because, some embodiments may similarly protect engines that process or operate on biometric data (Ohayon, ¶[0132]).
Regarding Claim 2, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising, implemented for any reference biometric datum, when the reference biometric datum is enrolled in the database (Pitt, ¶[0065], “FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an exemplary embodiment of a method 400 for person-level enrollment executed at a first database”):
generating a datum representative of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum (Pitt, ¶[0066], “step 450, where database 1 220 generates a biometric random key. It should be apparent that, as described in further detail above with reference to FIG. 2, biometric random key may be a globally unique identifier associated with the biometric data.” Chaskin, col 1, line 56-61, “generating the secure identification element from a database or random generation process of such elements.” Col 4, line 21-29, “Additional secure identification elements 20(a), 20(b), 20(c) . . . 20(n) may be generated by the system and stored in the database 28.” Examiner’s note: While Pitt only teaches implementing a singular random element associated with a user, Chaskin teaches a solution utilizing additional random elements (20(a), 20(b), …) with a user.), and
storing the generated datum in the database (Pitt, ¶[0066], “step 460, where database 1 220 stores the biometric random key in association with the biometric data.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein, for any reference biometric datum, the datum representative of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum consists of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum (Pitt, ¶[0052], “database 1 220 stores raw biometric data provided by a user in association with a biometric random key. Thus, the raw biometric data may be a fingerprint data set, retinal scan data set, or any other biometric data obtained by biometric input 110. Furthermore, biometric random key may be a globally unique identifier associated with the raw biometric data.” Chaskin, col 1, line 56-61, “generating the secure identification element from a database or random generation process of such elements.” Col 4, line 21-29, “Additional secure identification elements 20(a), 20(b), 20(c) . . . 20(n) may be generated by the system and stored in the database 28.” Examiner’s note: While Pitt only teaches implementing a singular random element associated with a user, Chaskin teaches a solution utilizing additional random elements (20(a), 20(b), …) with a user.).
Regarding Claim 4, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: The method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising, carried out for any reference biometric datum following the enrollment of the reference biometric datum:
commanding transmission of the datum representative of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum to a checking system (Pitt, ¶[0068], “After storing the biometric random key in step 460 … proceeds to step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when the second biometric datum is not found in the search, the random element contained in the response is generated by the processing unit after the searching (Pitt in view of Chaskin teaches the method of searching for a biometric datum, but not the explicit scenario of a query attack. Ohayon is not relied upon to teach searching for a biometric datum. Ohayon, ¶[0129], “[0129] The system may thus provide real-time attack detection, attack blocking, attack mitigation, and attack monitoring. … intentional modification or randomization of outputs (e.g., to counter-attack or to confuse an attacker)” ¶0132], “similarly … may protect ML/DL/AI Engines that receive (or that process, or that operate on) other types of data, for example, …, biometric data (e.g., fingerprint scan, retina scan, eye scan, face scan or facial image)”).
Regarding Claim 6, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: An identity checking method implemented by a checking system communicating with a processing unit configured to implement the method as claimed in claim 1, the identity checking method comprising (Pitt, ¶[0048], “biometric node 210 communicates with each of the databases 220, 230, …” ¶[0049-0050], “biometric node 210 is a device operated by a user. … Alternatively, biometric node 210 is instead a device operated by an institution.”):
for any reference biometric datum, receiving a datum representative of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum (Pitt, ¶[0068], “After storing the biometric random key in step 460 …; step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.),
following enrollment of the reference biometric datum in the database (Pitt, ¶[0066], “After generating the biometric random key in step 450, exemplary method 400 proceeds to step 460, where database 1 220 stores the biometric random key in association with the biometric data.”), and
storing the datum representative of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum in a memory (Pitt, ¶[0091-0092], “More particularly, in various exemplary embodiments, biometric node 210 sends a request for data to the digital address of the institution database including the unique ID … step 850, where biometric node 210 adds the received data to a temporary data structure”);
transmitting the query asking whether the first biometric datum is referenced in a database to the processing unit (Pitt, ¶[0087], “biometric node 210 sends the biometric data to database 1 220, which searches for and returns the corresponding biometric random key.”);
receiving the response to the query (Pitt, ¶[0087], “biometric node 210 sends the biometric data to database 1 220, which searches for and returns the corresponding biometric random key.”); and
verifying existence, in the memory, of a datum representative of a set of random elements that comprises the random element contained in the response (Pitt, ¶[0093], “step 850, biometric node 210 accesses the data structure containing the aggregated data and displays this data to the user.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: The identity checking method as claimed in claim 6, wherein:
the reference biometric data relate to reference individuals having a right to access a secure area (Pitt, ¶[0077], “By verifying that the user has proper authentication to access his or her account, the institution may be reasonably certain that the actual user is the registered owner of the account.” ), and
the first biometric datum relates to an individual wishing to access the secure area (Pitt, ¶[0076], “For example, a user may desire to access his or her data stored at a web-based institution, such as a credit agency or online bank.” ¶[0104-0105], “step 1110, where the biometric node receives a request for an action from a user. the requested action may be … gaining entrance to a high security area, … After receiving the request from the user, exemplary method 1100 proceeds to step 1120, where the biometric node obtains a biometric reading from the user.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (Ohayon, ¶[0177], “Some embodiments may include a non-transitory storage medium or storage article having stored thereon instructions or code that, when executed by a machine or a hardware processor, cause such machine or hardware processor to perform a method as described.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the identity checking method as claimed in claim 6 (Ohayon, ¶[0177], “Some embodiments may include a non-transitory storage medium or storage article having stored thereon instructions or code that, when executed by a machine or a hardware processor, cause such machine or hardware processor to perform a method as described.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Pitt discloses: A biometric data management system comprising:
a communication interface configured to:
receive a first biometric datum and a query asking whether the biometric datum is referenced in a database (Pitt, ¶[0065], “database 1 220 receives biometric data from biometric node 210. … database 1 220 performs a query to determine whether the received biometric data is associated with a new user.”),
the database comprising reference biometric data associated with respective sets of random elements that are disjoint (Pitt, ¶[0052], “database 1 220 stores raw biometric data provided by a user in association with a biometric random key. Thus, the raw biometric data may be a fingerprint data set, retinal scan data set, or any other biometric data obtained by biometric input 110. Furthermore, biometric random key may be a globally unique identifier associated with the raw biometric data.”),
send a response to the query (Pitt, ¶[0068], “After storing the biometric random key in step 460 or looking up the biometric random key in step 470, exemplary method 400 proceeds to step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”); and
a processing unit configured to:
search for a second biometric datum that corresponds to the first biometric datum among the reference biometric data (Application specification, page 10, line 1-5, defined “a reference biometric datum D' that corresponds to the first biometric datum will be called "second biometric datum".” Accordingly, the search for the second biometric datum is the search for the first biometric datum received. Therefore, Pitt teaches in, ¶[0067], “database 1 220 performs a query to look up the corresponding biometric random key 210 using the biometric data received from biometric node 210.”), and
generate the response to the query, the response containing a random element, wherein the random element satisfies the following conditions (Pitt, ¶[0068], “After storing the biometric random key in step 460 or looking up the biometric random key in step 470, exemplary method 400 proceeds to step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”):
when the second biometric datum is found in the search, the random element is an element from the set of random elements associated with the second biometric datum (Pitt, ¶[0068], “step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”),
the random element is different from a previous random element contained in a previous response to a previous query asking whether a previous biometric datum is referenced in the database (DBB), both when the previous random element forms part of one of the sets of random elements and when the previous random element does not belong to any of the sets of random elements associated with the reference biometric data (Pitt, ¶[0052], “biometric random key may be a globally unique identifier associated with the raw biometric data.”).
Pitt does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Chaskin teaches:
each set of random elements comprising a plurality of random elements (Chaskin, col 1, line 56-61, “generating the secure identification element from a database or random generation process of such elements.” Col 4, line 21-29, “Additional secure identification elements 20(a), 20(b), 20(c) . . . 20(n) may be generated by the system and stored in the database 28”), and
Pitt in view of Chaskin is analogous art because the references are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they pertain to the field of “biometric data integrity.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pitt with Chaskin to implement
“each set of random elements comprising a plurality of random elements”;
because, the method provides a secure way to access personal information without divulging a user's identification number (Chaskin, Abstract).
Pitt in view of Chaskin does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Ohayon teaches:
when the second biometric datum is not found in the search, the random element does not belong to any of the sets of random elements associated with the reference biometric data (Pitt in view of Chaskin teaches the method of searching for a biometric datum, but not the explicit scenario of a query attack. Ohayon is not relied upon to teach searching for a biometric datum. Ohayon, ¶[0129], “[0129] The system may thus provide real-time attack detection, attack blocking, attack mitigation, and attack monitoring. … intentional modification or randomization of outputs (e.g., to counter-attack or to confuse an attacker)” ¶0132], “may protect ML/DL/AI Engines that receive (or that process, or that operate on) other types of data, for example, …, biometric data (e.g., fingerprint scan, retina scan, eye scan, face scan or facial image)”), and
Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon is analogous art because the references are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they pertain to the field of “data integrity.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pitt in view of Chaskin with Ohayon to implement
“when the second biometric datum is not found in the search, the random element does not belong to any of the sets of random elements associated with the reference biometric data”;
because, some embodiments may similarly protect engines that process or operate on biometric data (Ohayon, ¶[0132]).
Regarding Claim 11, Pitt in view of Chaskin and further in view of Ohayon teaches: A system comprising:
the management system as claimed in claim 10; and
a checking device comprising:
a communication interface configured to:
for any reference biometric datum contained in the database, receive a datum representative of the set of random elements associated with the reference biometric datum (Pitt, ¶[0068], “After storing the biometric random key in step 460 … proceeds to step 480, where database 1 220 returns the biometric random key to biometric node 210.”),
following enrollment of the reference biometric datum in the database (Pitt, ¶[0066], “After generating the biometric random key in step 450, exemplary method 400 proceeds to step 460, where database 1 220 stores the biometric random key in association with the biometric data.”),
send the query to the management system (Pitt, ¶[0087], “biometric node 210 sends the biometric data to database 1 220, which searches for and returns the corresponding biometric random key.”), and
receive the response to the query (Pitt, ¶[0087], “biometric node 210 sends the biometric data to database 1 220, which searches for and returns the corresponding biometric random key.”),
a memory configured to store the datum received by the communication interface (Pitt, ¶[0092], “After receiving the data in step 845, exemplary method 800 proceeds to step 850, where biometric node 210 adds the received data to a temporary data structure for later display.”), and
a processing unit configured to verify existence, in the memory, of a datum representative of a set of random elements that comprises the random element contained in the response (Pitt, ¶[0093], “step 850, biometric node 210 accesses the data structure containing the aggregated data and displays this data to the user.”).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR W XIE whose telephone number is (703)756-4777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, JEFFREY PWU can be reached at (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 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.
/EDGAR W XIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433