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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicants’ amendment filed on July 6, 2026.
Claims 13-32 are examined in this application. Claims 1-12 are cancelled. Claims 25-32 are newly presented.
The information disclosure statement filed on October 28,2024 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/6/2026, pages 8, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a “specific a specific technological implementation for biometric authentication rather than an abstract idea of data processing or authorization. In particular, amended claim 13 recites capturing a biometric characteristic of a subject, generating a biometric mathematical representation from the captured physical characteristics, and obtaining previously generated biometric representations by reading and decoding them from a machine-readable optical label. These operations define a concrete biometric authentication process that relies on specific data structures and processing steps performed by computing equipment. The claimed method further requires comparing biometric mathematical representations and transmitting a subject identifier upon a positive match, thereby integrating the recited operations into a practical application in the field of biometric security. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a specific technical solution in biometric authentication technology and do not merely recite an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2106, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to a patent eligible subject matter. The claimed scope is directed to a statutory category; however, the claims are deemed to recite an abstract idea. The abstract idea is directed to providing access to a user based on user authentication without significantly more. The claims are also analyzed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); as required under MPEP 2106. The claims recite conditional limitations, including “in case of positive result…” Such limitations and those that follow do not have to take place in claim 13 and related dependent claims. However, since the claims include a device comprising one or more processors, the claimed device claim limitations are given weight because a machine has to be capable of performing even conditional steps. As a result, even if the last two limitations in claim 13 are analyzed with the rest of the claimed limitations, the claims are still deemed to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Abstract idea identified above is further categorized under mental processes, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Applicants do not argue that the mental process categorization, and the argued biometric usage to allow user access are not persuasive to render them as being impossible to carry out using a human mind and pen-and-paper. A human can obtain a mathematical representation of a user’s physical characteristic using a human eye, brain, and pen-and-paper. Likewise, said user’s physical characteristics can be captured by a human eye, mind storing the captured data, or pen-and-paper. The use of a QR code and reading of a QR code can be done also with a human mind, which can read a QR code and even decrypt the code using mental processes and pen-and-paper. Once the data is captured, decrypted, the human mind can compare the data and determine whether access can be granted to devices, equipment or file. The claims recite the functions at a high level, resulting in the claims capturing instructions that can be carried out by any off-the-shelf computer. Likewise, the claims recite the use of additional elements, as will be discussed later, to merely automate the abstract idea that is explained above as being carried out by the human mind. The claimed scope can also fall under certain methods of organizing human activity under BRI. The claims capture commercial interactions, including at least business relations. The utilization of user data stored in a wallet to authenticate a user and to allow the user access to information captures business relations between parties that require user validation before approving access to data and allow the user to utilize the wallet to carry out a transaction.
With Step-2A, Prong I being competed, the focus now shifts to the claims’ additional elements; Step-2A, Prong II. Here the additional elements fail to render the abstract idea as amounting to a practical application. Applicant’s argued limitations of the claims are not persuasive in the sense that they are not deemed additional elements. The additional elements are obtaining a biometric mathematical representation of a physical characteristics of a subject… containing a biometric feature of the subject, generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics, a computer equipment, one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer program product comprising program instructions.
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, analyzing the data, and determining an outcome. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Likewise, the claimed limitations as a whole, including the additional elements see to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception and merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; MPEP 2106.05(f)(g)(h).
Finally, the claims are not deemed to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step-2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 8-9, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the references fail to teach the amended limitations directed to “obtaining a biometric mathematical representation from a machine-readable optical label. Rather, Weiss relies on conventional storage and retrieval of biometric information within the disclosed authentication system. In contrast, amended claim 13 requires that the biometric mathematical representation itself be encoded in a machine-readable optical label and subsequently read and decoded by the computer equipment adapted to manage the data prior to comparison with the captured biometric representation. This specific arrangement provides a different technical architecture in which biometric representations are transferred and obtained through decoding of a machine- readable optical label, rather than retrieved from conventional biometric storage.”
The arguments are rendered moot as they do not apply to the newly relied upon reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 23 recite “obtaining a biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of a subject which is to be authorized to access a computer equipment adapted to manage the data by capturing one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject;
each physical characteristic containing a biometric feature of the subject, identifying the biometric feature in the captured physical characteristics, and generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of the subject representing the identified feature;
obtaining one or more first biometric mathematical representations of the subject by reading a machine-readable optical label and decoding a first biometric mathematical representation of the subject…” Emphasis added.
It is now known how you can generate data that is already obtained. Also, it is not known how you can determine “each physical characteristic” and “a biometric feature” based on a plurality of “physical characteristics” and generating “the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics” (plural characteristics) based on the a single biometric feature and each/single physical characteristic.
The Specification does not resolve these issues. Applicant may amend to clarify the claimed scope or direct the Examiner to the support in the Specification where it discloses how the ordered combination of limitations is carried out.
All dependent claims are rejected for dependency on the rejected claims.
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.
Claims 13-32 are 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.
Per claims 13 and 23, the claims recite “a computer equipment” in the first limitation and then recites “a computer equipment” in the last limitation within the wherein clause. It’s unclear whether the two-computer equipment are the same or different. Amending to capture appropriate antecedent basis would help overcome the rejection.
All dependent claims are rejected under the same ration and for mere dependency on the rejected claims.
Per claims 13, and 23, the claims recite:
“obtaining a biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of a subject which is to be authorized to access a computer equipment adapted to manage the data by capturing one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject;
each physical characteristic containing a biometric feature of the subject, identifying the biometric feature in the captured physical characteristics, and generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of the subject representing the identified feature;
obtaining one or more first biometric mathematical representations of the subject by reading a machine-readable optical label and decoding a first biometric mathematical representation of the subject…” Emphasis added.
The limitations above contain a plurality of issues, which render the claims indefinite/unclear. An attempt will be made to capture all the issues. The first limitation is directed to obtaining a biometric mathematical representation (BMR) of physical characteristics (plurality of characteristics) and the limitation lacks appropriate commas, resulting in the interpretation of the claim as being two ways – first, that the access to a computer is based on capturing one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject – second, that the obtaining of the BMR is based on capturing the one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject. It’s not clear which interpretation is to be carried out, so for purposes of examination any teaching of a obtained BMR to allow user access will be deemed as reading on the claim. More importantly, Applicant is confusing biometric data with physical data. Dependent claims and Specification spell out the types of biometric data and physical data, which are not the same, therefore it’s not clear whether physical data is obtained or whether biometric data is obtained and whether singular data is obtained or a plurality of data is obtained.
Moving to the second and third limitations, which recite identifying the biometric feature in the captured physical characteristics and generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics and obtaining a first biometric mathematical representation of the subject. Is the biometric mathematical representation obtained or generated, are they both the same or different is what is unclear about the claimed scope. No link is made between biometric and physical characteristics, and no clear recitation of what is generated and what is obtained is recited, resulting in the claims being ambiguous.
All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 13-24 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing access to a user based on user authentication without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind, and with use of pen-and-paper, such as observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. A human can obtain a mathematical representation of a user’s physical characteristic using a human eye, brain, and pen-and-paper. Likewise, said user’s physical characteristics can be captured by a human eye, mind storing the captured data, or pen-and-paper. The use of a QR code and reading of a QR code can be done also with a human mind, which can read a QR code and even decrypt the code using mental processes and pen-and-paper. Once the data is captured and decrypted, the human mind can compare the data and determine whether access can be granted to devices, equipment or files. Furthermore, and again under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as evident by the dependent claims, the abstract idea is further characterized under certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims capture commercial interactions, including at least business relations. The utilization of user data stored in a wallet to authenticate a user and to allow the user access to information captures business relations between parties that require user validation before approving access to data.
Claim 13, in pertinent part, recites:
A method for managing data provided by… [a first entity], the method comprising:
obtaining a biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of a subject which is to be authorized to access… [an item] adapted to manage the data by capturing one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject;
each physical characteristic containing a biometric feature of the subject, identifying the biometric feature in the captured physical characteristics, and generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of the subject representing the identified feature;
obtaining one or more first biometric mathematical representations of the subject by reading a machine-readable optical label and decoding a first biometric mathematical representation of the subject;
comparing the obtained biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of the subject with the obtained first biometric mathematical representations;
in case of positive result in the comparison, selecting the corresponding first biometric mathematical representation, and
sending subject identifier data, associated to the selected first biometric mathematical representation of the subject, to the… [first entity], wherein the subject identifier data is related to the subject which is to be authorized to access… [an item] adapted to manage the data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: obtaining a biometric mathematical representation of a physical characteristics of a subject… containing a biometric feature of the subject, generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics, a computer equipment, one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer program product comprising program instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, analyzing the data, and determining an outcome. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Likewise, the claimed limitations as a whole, including the additional elements see to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception and merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; MPEP 2106.05 (f)(g)(h).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. For instance, the dependent claims include additional elements such as a machine-readable optical label, and receiving data related to the subject from a digital wallet comprised in the first computer equipment. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. They simply automate the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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 13-15, 18-20, and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0103362 to Chafni et al. (Chafni), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0427868 to Batt et al. (Batt).
Per claims 13, and 23-24, Chafni teaches:
A method for managing data provided by a first computer equipment, the method comprising [Abstract and Figure 1]:
obtaining a biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of a subject which is to be authorized to access a computer equipment adapted to manage the data by capturing one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject; each physical characteristic containing a biometric feature of the subject, identifying the biometric feature in the captured physical characteristics, and generating the biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of the subject representing the identified feature (User biometric information is captured including facial, voice or fingerprint data-which will later be used to perform a comparison and determine access rights – “The vectorization step 162 may convert the biometric data into a mathematical representation of the biometric data”) [Abstract, Paragraphs 0021-0026, claim 6];
obtaining one or more first biometric mathematical representations of the subject by reading a machine-readable optical label and decoding a first biometric mathematical representation of the subject (to determine access, a bar-code is scanned and decrypted to obtain biometric rep. of the user) [Abstract, Paragraphs 0018, 0036-0037, and 0039];
comparing the obtained biometric mathematical representation of physical characteristics of the subject with the obtained first biometric mathematical representations (the received biometric is compared to the retrieved biometric encoded data) [Abstract, Paragraphs 0037-0039];
Chafni does not explicitly teach:
Although Chafni teaches provisioning data to allow access to a device as a result of a user authentication using biometric/physical data, as indicated above and in Paragraphs 0040, 0095 Claim 17, Chafni does not explicitly disclose in case of positive result in the comparison, selecting the corresponding first biometric mathematical representation.
Batt teaches in case of positive result in the comparison, selecting the corresponding first biometric mathematical representation [Paragraphs 0185-087].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, which teaches utilizing user biometric data and characteristics to authenticate the user and provisioning access to a device or a door wherein said access is clearly based on the inherent ability for Chafni to send a notification to the device to allow user access based on user authentication, to include the teachings of Batt to explicitly disclose this inherency in Chafni by provisioning a digital ID to the entity that allows the user access to that entity whether it is an application, program, a door, or a device in motivation of insuring that the security measures required to allow user access to the device are enhanced.
Examiner notes that the above limitations is a condition al limitation, per claim 13, which renders the limitation and the following limitation as not having to be carried out.
Although Chafni teaches provisioning data to allow access to a device as a result of a user authentication using biometric/physical data, as indicated above and in Paragraphs 0040, 0095 Claim 17, Chafni does not explicitly disclose sending subject identifier data, associated to the selected first biometric mathematical representation of the subject, to the first computer equipment, wherein the subject identifier data is related to the subject which is to be authorized to access a computer equipment adapted to manage the data.
Batt teaches sending subject identifier data, associated to the selected first biometric mathematical representation of the subject, to the first computer equipment, wherein the subject identifier data is related to the subject which is to be authorized to access a computer equipment adapted to manage the data [Paragraphs 0185-087].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, which teaches utilizing user biometric data and characteristics to authenticate the user and provisioning access to a device or a door wherein said access is clearly based on the inherent ability for Chafni to send a notification to the device to allow user access based on user authentication, to include the teachings of Batt to explicitly disclose this inherency in Chafni by provisioning a digital ID to the entity that allows the user access to that entity whether it is an application, program, a door, or a device in motivation of insuring that the security measures required to allow user access to the device are enhanced.
Per claim 14, Chafni teaches wherein capturing one or more physical characteristics representative of the subject comprises capturing one or more of an image an audio sample, a video sample, a biological sample, or a chemical sample of the subject [Abstract, Paragraphs 0021-0026, claim 6].
Per claim 15, Chafni teaches wherein the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject comprises decoding the biometric mathematical representation from a machine-readable optical label generated based on the first biometric mathematical representation of the subject [Abstract, Paragraphs 0018, 0027, and 0037].
Per claim 18, Chafni teaches wherein capturing one or more physical characteristics comprises capturing one or more of an image, an audio, a video, a biological, or a chemical sample of the subject, specifically capturing an image comprises capturing an image with one or more of a portion of a face, of a palm, of a fingerprint, of an eye, of ears, of a nose, of teeth, of a tongue, of palm veins pattern, or of finger veins pattern, of the subject [Paragraph 0022].
Per claim 19, Chafni teaches wherein the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject have been previously received by the computer equipment adapted to manage the data and / or the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject are stored in a database [Paragraph 0083].
Per claim 20, Chafni does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: deleting the obtained first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the obtained data related to the subject.
Batt teaches the method further comprising: deleting the obtained first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the obtained data related to the subject [Paragraph 0103].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, in view of Batt to teach deleting the data provisioned to allow user access in response of user validation in motivation of enhancing security measures by not allowing the data to be accessed by a fraudster or a non-authorized person.
Per claim 25, Chafni teaches wherein the obtaining and comparing of the biometric mathematical representations are performed locally by the computer equipment adapted to manage the data [Paragraphs 0036-0040].
Per claim 26, Chafni teaches wherein the machine-readable optical label comprises a two-dimensional barcode that is a QR code encoding the first biometric mathematical representation of the subject [Paragraphs 0036-0040].
Per claim 27, Chafni teaches wherein the first biometric mathematical representation encoded in the machine-readable optical label is encrypted prior to decoding [Paragraphs 0036-0040].
Per claim 28, Chafni teaches wherein comparing the biometric mathematical representations comprises computing a similarity score between the biometric mathematical representations and determining whether the similarity score exceeds a predetermined threshold [Claim 17, Paragraphs 0065-0066, and 0077].
Per claim 29, Chafni teaches wherein the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject are stored in a memory of the computer equipment adapted to manage the data [Paragraphs 0091, and 0093].
Per claim 30, Chafni teaches further comprising generating the machine- readable optical label based on the first biometric mathematical representation of the subject [Claim 10, Paragraphs 0017, and 0018-0029].
Per claim 31, Chafni teaches wherein the machine-readable optical label is displayed by the first computer equipment and read by the computer equipment adapted to manage the data [Paragraph 0028].
Per claim 32, Chafni teaches wherein comparing the biometric mathematical representations comprises computing a similarity score between the biometric mathematical representations and determining whether the similarity score exceeds a predetermined threshold [Claim 17, Paragraphs 0065-0066, and 0077].
Per claims 16-17, and 21-22, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chafni, in view of Batt, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0323300 to Weiss (Weiss).
Per claim 16 Chafni teaches obtaining the user data and provisioning access to a device or entity, as indicated above; however, Chafni in view of Batt not not explicitly disclose receiving data related to the subject from a digital wallet comprised in the first computer equipment; authorizing the access of the subject to the computer equipment adapted to manage the data based on the received data.
Weis teaches receiving data related to the subject from a digital wallet comprised in the first computer equipment; authorizing the access of the subject to the computer equipment adapted to manage the data based on the received data [Paragraphs 0269-0271, and 0277-0281].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, in view of Batt which teach provisioning access to a device or entity based on user authentication to include the teachings of Weis to explicitly teach accessing a mobile wallet in motivation of allowing the user to perform functions using the mobile wallet that are not possible with the devices taught as being provisioned access to by Chafni and Batt. The device access is a design choice. It would be obvious to provision access to anything based on a determination that a user is authorized access.
Per claim 17, Chafni teaches wherein authorizing the access of the subject to the computer equipment adapted to manage the data based on the received data comprises: comparing the data related to the subject obtained from the [first entity]… comprised in the first computer equipment with the same data related to the subject stored in a database; in case of positive result of the comparison, authorizing the access of the subject to the computer equipment adapted to manage the message [Abstract, Paragraphs 0037-0039].
Chafni in view of Batt do not teach receiving data from a digital wallet.
Weis teaches receiving data from a digital wallet [Paragraphs 0269-0271, and 0277-0281].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, in view of Batt which teach provisioning access to a device or entity based on user authentication to include the teachings of Weis to explicitly teach receiving the data from a digital wallet in motivation of simply indicating from where the data comes from, which can come from any device or application or entity, in motivation of authenticating the user and allowing access.
Per claim 21, Chafni in view of Batt teach user authentication using various data and also deleting a provisioned data to allow user access, as indicated above, however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein deleting the obtained first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the obtained data related to the subject comprises:- obtaining a first time from a timer;- obtaining a second time previously assigned to the data related to the subject or to the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject;- checking whether the first time is above the second time;- in case of positive result in the checking, deleting the corresponding first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the corresponding data related to the subject.
Weis teaches wherein deleting the obtained first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the obtained data related to the subject comprises:- obtaining a first time from a timer;- obtaining a second time previously assigned to the data related to the subject or to the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject;- checking whether the first time is above the second time;- in case of positive result in the checking, deleting the corresponding first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the corresponding data related to the subject [Abstract, Paragraphs 0038-0041, and 0170-0173].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, in view of Batt which teach provisioning access to a device or entity based on user authentication to include the teachings of Weis to explicitly teach deleting the provisioned access data based on rules in motivation of optimizing the security measures related to deletion of the access rights.
Per claim 22, Chafni in view of Batt teach user authentication using various data and also deleting a provisioned data to allow user access, as indicated above, however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein deleting the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the obtained data related to the subject further comprises: receiving a request, from the first computer equipment, for deleting the first vectors and / or the obtained data related to the subject.
Weis teaches wherein deleting the first biometric mathematical representations of the subject and / or the obtained data related to the subject further comprises: receiving a request, from the first computer equipment, for deleting the first vectors and / or the obtained data related to the subject [Abstract, Paragraphs 0038-0041, and 0170-0173].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chafni, in view of Batt which teach provisioning access to a device or entity based on user authentication to include the teachings of Weis to explicitly teach deleting the provisioned access data based on a request in motivation of optimizing the security measures related to deletion of the access rights and user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
See U.S. Patent 12,198,138 to Trinh et al. which teaches systems, methods and computer-readable storage media utilized to complete a cardless transaction on a distributed ledger network. One method includes receiving, by a point-of-sale (POS) computing device, a transaction request including a biometric sample from an individual associated with a payment account at a financial institution. The method further includes authenticating, by the POS computing device, the biometric sample by cross-referencing the biometric sample with a biometric dataset stored on the distributed ledger network. The method further includes, in response to authenticating the biometric sample, generating, by the POS computing device, a cryptogram associated with the biometric sample and processing, by the POS computing device, the transaction request utilizing the cryptogram.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Hadi Armouche, can be reached on (571) 270-3618. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights