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 .
Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on September 15, 2025. Claims 1-8 are pending examined herein.
Examiner’s Note
Claim Interpretation
2. As per claim 7, in a method claim recites “in a case where” which is being interpreted as contingent limitation, however see MPEP 2111.04 note “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.”
As such, the above noted claim recitation should be amended and the claim limitation should be claimed as positively being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-6 are a system; claim 7 is a method; and claim 8 is a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 1-8, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-8 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of provisional registration of user in association with user’s biometric information and upon successfully matching provisionally obtained biometric with definitively obtained biometric, providing a reward which is mental processes applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), indeed one can register user information using pen and paper, create copies, and distribute them to identify the same user by performing a look up and match at a different location by using one of the distributed copies and upon matching, providing a registered member a reward such as a coupon. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A-C and certain methods of organizing human activity which applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), see claims 4 and 6 which reward and encourage registering user information (also see Fig. 8 and its associated disclosure). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-8 at least are processor, first terminal comprising camera capable of capturing an image of a user having facial feature(s) (such as service provider e.g. employee), second terminal comprising camera capable of capturing an image of a user having facial feature(s) (such as service user e.g. customer) [claims 1 and 6-7]; delivering/communicating information on the second terminal [claim 2]; recording/storing data [claims 4-5]; and displaying/presenting data [claim 6]; and additionally non-transitory recording medium [per claim 8]. Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed spec. Figs. 3, 8, 12, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Captured data such as biometric data e.g. image is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes captured data to ascertain that user’s provisionally obtained biometric information matches with biometric information via user’s terminal device to provide a reward upon successful match. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is reward based on information about the user (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as transmitting/sending/receiving data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide marketing content such as rewards, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of provisional registration of user in association with user’s biometric information and upon successfully matching provisionally obtained biometric with definitively obtained biometric, providing a reward which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-8, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of provisional registration of user in association with user’s biometric information and upon successfully matching provisionally obtained biometric with definitively obtained biometric, providing a reward which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's biometric data is received, user is encouraged to provide biometric information to complete registration, and/or information is provided to the user at a registered number];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53 [similarly here biometric data is obtained and extracted/parsed to ensure successful match]; and
(iii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here reward and user action(s) are recorded].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tussy et al. (Pub. No.: US2020/0042685) referred to hereinafter as Tussy, in view of Nada et al. (Pub. No.: US2015/0043792) referred to hereinafter as Nada.
As per claims 1, 7, and 8, Tussy discloses
- per claim 1, an information processing system comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
- per claim 7, information processing method comprising:
- per claim 8, a non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded, the program causing a computer to carry out:
(a) a first generating process of generating first face image of a service user by controlling a camera disposed on a first terminal which is managed by a service provider (see [0263] note “allows a third party to provide an existing root identity profile for comparison to the biometric information obtained at the device for authentication. For example, the root identity profile may comprise an image or other biometric reading from a customer that was captured and verified in a bank branch, from a DMV file, or from another authorized and trusted source. The root identity profile may alternatively or additionally comprise biometric templates created from the verified image or biometric reading. In this manner, the identification match at the device has in increased level of trust based on the verified, third-party root identity profile.”;);
(b) a first obtaining process of extracting first face feature information as first biometric information of a service user from the first face image (see Figs. 13A, 13B, and their associated disclosure; [0263]; [0193]; [0199]-[0200]; [0214]-[0217]);
(c) a first registering process of generating first registration information indicating that the service user is registered as a provisional member in association with the first biometric information (see Figs. 17, 18, and their associated disclosure; [0006]; [0263]; [0322]);
(d) a second generating process of generating second face image of the service user by controlling a camera disposed on a second terminal which is managed by the service user (see [0267] note "user of the smart device 1612 then articulates the camera 1614 so that the user's face can be captured by the device's camera 1614, in step 1707. The image downloaded from the server 1630 and the image that has been captured on the device 1612 can now be compared in step 1709. For example, each image is converted into a biometric template by a facial recognition algorithm for comparison. Upon comparison, if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher, the device captured image (device identity) and the previously captured image (root identity) can be considered a match in step 1711. Access may then be granted, or the signup/enrollment process may then be completed based on the matching images in step 1713. If there is no match in step 1711, the access is denied in step 1715.");
(e) a second obtaining process of obtaining second biometric information from a second terminal which is managed by a service user (see [0262]-[0263]; [0267] note "user of the smart device 1612 then articulates the camera 1614 so that the user's face can be captured by the device's camera 1614, in step 1707. The image downloaded from the server 1630 and the image that has been captured on the device 1612 can now be compared in step 1709. For example, each image is converted into a biometric template by a facial recognition algorithm for comparison. Upon comparison, if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher, the device captured image (device identity) and the previously captured image (root identity) can be considered a match in step 1711. Access may then be granted, or the signup/enrollment process may then be completed based on the matching images in step 1713. If there is no match in step 1711, the access is denied in step 1715."; [0268]-[0274]); and
(f) […] contact detail information which is associated with the second terminal, in a case where the first biometric information and the second biometric information successfully match (see [0078]; [0151]; [0267]; [0322]; [0348]).
Tussy suggests signup/enrollment process, see at least [0267]-[0274], in view of compact prosecution the Examiner relies on Nada to teach that it was indeed old and well known to add further registration to the same user’s account, i.e. however Tussy expressly does not teach a second registering process of generating second registration information indicating that the service user is registered as a regular member in association with the first registration information and […].
(f*) Nada teaches a second registering process of generating second registration information indicating that the service user is registered as a regular member in association with the first registration information […] (see [0057]-[0058]; [0071]-[0072]; [0083]-[0086]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Tussy in view of Nada with motivation to ensure any additional biometric information being added as part of registration is authenticated prior to registering any new data such as additional facial feature as part of user registered process to provide utmost security in handling user’s private information, see at least Nada [0072] and [0095].
[Claim 2] Tussy in view of Nada teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Tussy teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a delivering process of delivering information to a contact detail indicated by the contact detail information (see [0322]).
[Claim 3] Tussy in view of Nada teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Tussy teaches wherein the contact detail information is identification information pertaining to the second terminal, identification information pertaining to an application which operates in the second terminal, or an address of the service user which address is registered in the second terminal or the application (see [0322]).
[Claim 4] Tussy in view of Nada teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Tussy teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a reward recording process of, during a period from generation of the first registration information to generation of the second registration information, recording, in association with the first registration information, reward information pertaining to a reward given to a detection target indicated by the first biometric information, and after the generation of the second registration information, the at least one processor records the reward information in association with the second registration information in the reward recording process (see [0010]; [0159]-[0162]; [0165]-[0166]; [0268]; [0348]).
[Claim 5] Tussy in view of Nada teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Tussy teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out an action recording process of, during a period from generation of the first registration information to generation of the second registration information, recording, in association with the first registration information, action information pertaining to an action of a detection target indicated by the first biometric information, and after the generation of the second registration information, the at least one processor records the action information in association with the second registration information in the action recording process (see [0267]-[0268]; [0348]; [0361]).
[Claim 6] Tussy in view of Nada teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Tussy teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a presenting process of, during a period from generation of the first registration information to generation of the second registration information, presenting, to a detection target indicated by the first biometric information, information encouraging an action for generating the second registration information (see [0158]-[0160]).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
5. Objection: Objection to title is withdrawn in view of amended Title submitted by the Applicant.
101: The Applicant has provided no remarks with any particularity with respect to prong one and argues prong two, note “Even if it is assumed claim I recites a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim is patent eligible under prong two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) provides that in "Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. "Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim I recites:” However, partially registering based on a first image and then fully registering based on a second image when both the first and the second image match is indeed an abstract idea, as explained under updated prong two, note as follows: “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-8 at least are processor, first terminal comprising camera capable of capturing an image of a user having facial feature(s) (such as service provider e.g. employee), second terminal comprising camera capable of capturing an image of a user having facial feature(s) (such as service user e.g. customer) [claims 1 and 6-7]; delivering/communicating information on the second terminal [claim 2]; recording/storing data [claims 4-5]; and displaying/presenting data [claim 6]; and additionally non-transitory recording medium [per claim 8]. Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed spec. Figs. 3, 8, 12, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Captured data such as biometric data e.g. image is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes captured data to ascertain that user’s provisionally obtained biometric information matches with biometric information via user’s terminal device to provide a reward upon successful match. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is reward based on information about the user (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as transmitting/sending/receiving data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide marketing content such as rewards, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of provisional registration of user in association with user’s biometric information and upon successfully matching provisionally obtained biometric with definitively obtained biometric, providing a reward which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).” Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as amended fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application contrary to the Applicant’s assertion.
102: It appears that he Applicant has argued in view of very limited characterization of Tussy, for instance note [0264]-[0271], and particularly note [0272] "root identity biometric data and the device identity biometric data are converted into biometric templates (root identity biometric templates and device identity biometric templates) by fingerprint recognition, facial recognition, and/or voice recognition algorithms. In some instances, the root identity biometric data may be converted into the root identity biometric templates at the server, and the templates may be sent to the device. The root identity biometric templates and the device identity biometric templates are compared in step 1709, and if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher, the root identity templates and the device identity templates can be considered a match. Based on the match, access may be granted, or a signup/enrollment process can be completed in step 1713."; [0273]-[0274] which clearly based on comparing user data “a signup/enrollment process can be completed in step 1713”. Nevertheless, the Examiner has further relied on Nada to teach further data to user’s account can be added to the same user’s account or profile upon successful verification, for instance note as follows:
“Tussy suggests signup/enrollment process, see at least [0267]-[0274], in view of compact prosecution the Examiner relies on Nada to teach that it was indeed old and well known to add further registration to the same user’s account, i.e. however Tussy expressly does not teach a second registering process of generating second registration information indicating that the service user is registered as a regular member in association with the first registration information and […].
(f*) Nada teaches a second registering process of generating second registration information indicating that the service user is registered as a regular member in association with the first registration information […] (see [0057]-[0058]; [0071]-[0072]; [0083]-[0086]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Tussy in view of Nada with motivation to ensure any additional biometric information being added as part of registration is authenticated prior to registering any new data such as additional facial feature as part of user registered process to provide utmost security in handling user’s private information, see at least Nada [0072] and [0095]. ” Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Previously noted
- Pub. No.: US2015/0043792 see Abstract note “biometric authentication device includes: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: determine, when authentication with first biometric information has been successful, whether second biometric information different from the first biometric information is from a user corresponding to the first biometric information using a determining method corresponding to one of a plurality of security levels, the determining method being selected from among a plurality of determining methods based on the one of the plurality of security levels, and register, when the second biometric information has been determined to be from the user, the second biometric information associated with the user.”
- WO2023/239760A1 see Abstract “computer-implemented method of verifying a user's identity including capturing a user's real-time facial image and ID depicting the user's facial image, which are stored and encrypted on the user's electronic device and compared to one another to confirm the identity of the user. If confirmed, a unique data segment from the facial image or the ID will be segregated using a protocol that is subject to an unkeyed cryptographic hashing to generate an initial hashed data file. When a user needs their identity verified by another party, another facial image of the user is captured that is then compared to the stored ID to confirm the user's identity and will then again segregate another anonymous and unique data segment using the same protocol to generate another hashed data file that is compared to the initial hashed file to determine a 100% match or non-match communicated to a requesting user”
- US20130339240A1 [0034] “The bio module 119 may receive biometric data from the user of the user device 102. The biometric data may include audio, image, and video provided by the user. For example, the user may request audio authorization to initiate or approve a transaction. The bio metric module 119 may provide an interface prompt and ask the user to state their password or pass phrase. The bio module 119 may store the audio sample on the user device 102 and send the sample to the authorization server 106 for validation. In addition to the audio sampling, the bio module 119 may prompt the user to take picture using their user device 102. The picture may be of the users face, eye, or any other physical feature (e.g., fingerprint) that may be used to confirm the identity of the user. Further, the bio module 119 may prompt the user to record a video image of their face or eyes and to speak a password or pass phrase. The picture or video recording may be provided to the authorization server 106 for validation.”; [0041] "Read names "only" of bank name and card name. No additional data is provided unless biometric validation has taken place and mobile user is authorized for additional data."
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 DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621