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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,214. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims relate to a similar concept.
18/826359
11,706,214
A method comprising:
receiving a request from a user device to authenticate a person as an authenticated user by an authentication system;
receiving image data of the person captured by the user device;
determining, based on facial recognition, the person in the image data does not sufficiently match a reference model of the authenticated user; and
in response to the person in the image data not sufficiently matching the reference model, comparing the image data of the person with image data of the authenticated user stored in a corporate service.
A method for increasing security of devices that leverages an integration of an authentication system with at least one corporate service comprising:
receiving a request from a user device to authenticate a person as a particular user by the authentication system;
capturing a photo of the person attempting to be authenticated as the particular user;
mapping nodal points to the captured photo of the person attempting to be authenticated as the particular user to a device or service;
comparing the nodal points from the photo against a reference model for facial recognition of the particular user;
determining that the nodal points of the person in the photo does not match the reference model for the particular user; and
based on the determination that the person in the photo is not the particular user, initiating a request to a second device associated with the particular user to verify whether the photo is the particular user;
receiving, from the second device, a disavowal of the photo from the particular user; and
based on the disavowal, determining the person is an adversary and initiating identification of the person.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al., (US Publication No. 2016/0180068), hereinafter “Das”, and further in view of Dow et al., (US Publication No. 2018/0114054), hereinafter “Dow”.
Regarding claims 1, 13, Das discloses
receiving a request from a user device to authenticate a person as an authenticated user by an authentication system [Das, paragraph 17];
receiving image data of the person captured by the user device [Das, paragraphs 17-18];
Das does not specifically disclose, however Dow teaches
determining, based on facial recognition, the person in the image data does not sufficiently match a reference model of the authenticated user [Dow, paragraph 55, the accessibility system may first compare the facial image to images stored in a cache and then if no matches are found, the accessibility system may send the facial image to a remote server for facial recognition]; and
in response to the person in the image data not sufficiently matching the reference model, comparing the image data of the person with image data of the authenticated user stored in a corporate service [Dow, paragraph 55, the accessibility system may first compare the facial image to images stored in a cache and then if no matches are found, the accessibility system may send the facial image to a remote server for facial recognition].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the images locally, determining a match does not exist and send the image to a remote (corporate service) for identification in order to determine if the user is authorized to access the system.
It would have been obvious to combine Dow with Das as both arts relate to authentication of a user on a device.
Regarding claims 2, 14, Das-Dow further discloses
wherein the authentication system is integrated with the corporate service [Das, paragraphs 17-21, figure 1].
Regarding claims 5, 17, Das-Dow further discloses
wherein the image data of the person is from a video captured by the user device [Das, paragraphs 34-35].
Regarding claims 6, 18, Das-Dow further discloses
wherein the image data of the person is from a photo captured by the user device [Das, paragraphs 34-35].
Regarding claim 10, Das-Dow further discloses
mapping nodal points to the image data of the person attempting to be authenticated as the authenticated user [Das, paragraphs 34-35]; comparing the nodal points against the reference model for facial recognition of the authenticated user [Das, paragraphs 43, 67]; and determining that the nodal points do not sufficiently match the reference model for the authenticated user [Das, paragraphs 43, 67].
Regarding claim 11, Das-Dow further discloses
wherein the user device is configured to send the image data of the person and a location of the user device to the authentication system [Das, paragraphs 17-21].
Regarding claim 12, Das-Dow further discloses
wherein the user device is configured to record and send video and/or audio data of the person who attempted to be authenticated as the authenticated user [Das, paragraphs 17-21, 35].
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das-Dow as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Ikehara et al., (US Publication No. 2005/0057339), hereinafter “Ikehara”.
Regarding claims 3, 15, Das-Dow does not specifically disclose, however Ikehara teaches
wherein the authentication of the person is continuous [Ikehara, paragraph 12].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain continuous authentication in order to ensure the security of the system.
It would have been obvious to combine Dow with Das and Ikehara as all arts relate to authentication of a user on a device.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das-Dow as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Patel et al., (US Publication No. 2008/0088698), hereinafter “Patel”.
Regarding claims 4, 16, Das-Dow does not specifically disclose, however Ikehara teaches
wherein the corporate service is a corporate directory [Patel, paragraph 33].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to check with a corporate directory for a user’s authorization in order to protect the security of the system.
It would have been obvious to combine Dow with Das and Patel as all arts relate to authentication of a user on a device.
Regarding claims 7, 19, Das-Dow-Patel further discloses
wherein in response to the person in the image data not sufficiently matching the image data of the authenticated user stored in the corporate service [Patel, paragraph 33], sending a notification to the authentication system that the person has unsuccessfully attempted to authenticate as the authenticated user [Das, paragraph 67].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433