DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 07/16/2026. Applicant amends claims 1, 15, and 19, cancels claims 4 and 18, and introduces new claims 21–22.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 1, 15, and 19, and introduces new claims 21–22. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous combination of references. As a result, a new search was conducted and new art was identified to address the subject matter not taught by the previous combination. The new combination of references serving as the basis for the new rejection is applied to the amended claims below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 15, and newly presented claims 21–22. All arguments have been fully considered.
As discussed above, the Examiner agrees that the Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous combination of references serving as the basis for the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 requiring an addition search. The new rejection, which incorporates the newly identified reference is mapped to the amended claims below.
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, 15, 21–22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSchrijver (US 6,311,042 B1, issued Oct. 30, 2001) in view of Mossoba (US 2021/0241276 A1, published Aug. 5, 2021) in view of Jose (US 2022/0277070 A1, published Sep. 1, 2022) in view of Kao (US 2010/0031030 A1, published Feb. 4, 2010).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, DeSchrijver discloses: a fortified secure mobile biometric authorization system for information security, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: receive, a request for a mobile interaction comprising a user signature from a user device (a server receiving data packets from a wireless communication device that are data signals representative of a signature made by a user employing the wireless communication device. DeSchrijver 6:8–13.); initiate a signature authorization process to authenticate the user signature from the mobile interaction (the server processes the data signals to determine whether the signature offered by the user is authentic. DeSchrijver 6:13–15.); wherein the signature authorization process comprises comparing the user signature with a stored user signature and evaluating consistency between the stored user signature and the user signature of the request (the server in processing the received signature data accesses the database storing templates previously provided by the user and representative of the characteristics of that user’s signature to compare to verify whether the data provided is representative of an authentic signature. DeSchrijver 6:15–23.), send a confirmation notification to the user device approving or declining the mobile interaction (if the signature is deemed to be authentic, the server generates a verification signal representative of the verification of the signature. DeSchrijver 6:23–25.); and if approval is received, process the mobile interaction by transferring information, to complete the request (verifying the identity of the user allows users to perform requested financial transactions. DeSchrijver 6:33–37.).
DeSchrijver does not disclose: communicating across a secure communication channel; based on a response from the signature authorization process, wherein the user signature is authorized when a threshold percentage of similarity between the user signature of the request and the stored user signature is satisfied, if the signature authorization process cannot verify the threshold percentage of similarity for the user signature of the request, transmit instructions to the user device to initiate a biometric authorization process; based on receiving and performing a verification of a biometric input as part of the biometric authorization process.
However, Mossoba does disclose: wherein the user signature is authorized when a threshold percentage of similarity between the user signature of the request and the stored user signature is satisfied (signature analysis matching a reference signature to a transaction signature with a threshold of 90 percent. Mossoba ¶ 44.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user signature-based authentication using a mobile device to execute financial transactions on a network of DeSchrijver with determining user signature authentication based upon a particular percentage value threshold based upon the teachings of Mossoba. The motivation being to calculate a specific threshold in light of the scientifically measure data points used to analyze a signature. Mossoba ¶ 44.
DeSchrijver in view of Mossoba does not disclose: communicating across a secure communication channel; based on a response from the signature authorization process, if the signature authorization process cannot verify the threshold percentage of similarity for the user signature of the request, transmit instructions to the user device to initiate a biometric authorization process; based on receiving and performing a verification of a biometric input as part of the biometric authorization process.
However, Jose does disclose: if the signature authorization process cannot verify the threshold percentage of similarity for the user signature of the request, transmit instructions to the user device to initiate a biometric authorization process; based on receiving and performing a verification of a biometric input as part of the biometric authorization process (detecting failure of a first type of biometric authentication such that the received biometric signature is no similar enough to determine authentication, direct the system to an alternatively enabled authentication method. Jose ¶ 92.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user signature-based authentication using a mobile device to execute financial transactions on a network of DeSchrijver with upon failure of a primary biometric authentication require a secondary biometric authentication of the user for network access based upon the teachings of Jose. The motivation being to back up authentication factors if one is not reliable. Jose ¶ 92.
Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose does not disclose: communicating across a secure communication channel.
However, Kao does disclose: communicating across a secure communication channel (the mobile device establishes an encrypted secure channel prior to sharing authentication operations and maintains the secure channel with the visited network. Kao ¶¶ 12 and 26.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user signature-based authentication using a mobile device to execute financial transactions on a network of DeSchrijver with establishing and communicating authentication and subsequent communication over an encrypted secure channel based upon the teachings of Kao. The motivation being to shield sensitive information from would be attackers thereby protecting the security of the device and the transaction. Kao ¶ 13.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15, respectively, wherein the threshold percentage ranges from 90% to 100% (signature analysis matching a reference signature to a transaction signature with a threshold of 90 percent. Mossoba ¶ 44. (See MPEP 2131.03 Anticipation of Ranges.) Examiner notes that a threshold percentage of 100% with respect to a handwritten signature typically does not indicate authenticity.).
Claims 2–3, 5–7, 16–17, 19–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSchrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina (US 8,542,921 B1, issued Sep. 24, 2013).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15. Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao does not disclose: wherein the mobile interaction is a mobile check deposit initiated by a user operating the user device.
However, Medina does disclose: wherein the mobile interaction is a mobile check deposit initiated by a user operating the user device (a mobile computing device performs signature authentication using an image files of a check taken by the device. Medina 7:49–8:2.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user signature-based authentication using a mobile device to execute financial transactions on a network of DeSchrijver with using the mobile device to capture credential information from a check using an internal camera based upon the teachings of Medina. The motivation being to capture authentication information with the standard hardware found on a mobile device. Medina 7:49–62.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 16, wherein the user device comprises a mobile phone or tablet with a camera, wherein the camera facilitates capturing the user signature prior to the receiving of the request (a mobile computing device performs signature authentication using an image files of a check taken by the device. Medina 7:49–8:2.).
Regarding claim 5, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the biometric authorization process comprises facial or fingerprint recognition (fingerprint. Jose ¶ 92.).
Regarding claim 6, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the confirmation notification comprises a text message, an email, a push notification, or a pop-up banner (DeSchrijver 6:23–30.).
Regarding claim 7, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the information comprises funds that will be transferred into an account of the user (verifying the identity of the user allows users to perform requested financial transactions. DeSchrijver 6:33–37.).
Regarding claim 19, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina discloses the limitations of claim 18, wherein the biometric authorization process comprises facial or fingerprint recognition (fingerprint. Jose ¶ 92.).
Regarding claim 20, Deschrijver in view of Mossoba in view of Jose in view of Kao in view of Medina discloses the limitations of claim 19, wherein the information comprises funds that will be transferred into an account of the user (verifying the identity of the user allows users to perform requested financial transactions. DeSchrijver 6:33–37.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Doyle (US 2004/0162987 A1, published Aug. 19, 2004), authenticating a biometric signature and determining whether it is sufficiently similar to a provided baseline reading where exact matching can indicate fraudulently copied signature.
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 VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights