DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending. This is in response to the application filed on September 27, 2024 which claims priority to a foreign application filed on September 29, 2023.
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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 1 recites “output an positive authentication indication….” is grammatically incorrect. Correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “using an trained AI model to determine the associated force…” is grammatically incorrect. Correction is required.
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 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because. For claim 1, while the claim is directed nominally to an “apparatus”, the claim lacks any structure.
Claim 18 is also rejected for software claim which is not one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9 , 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent 10579180 (hereinafter Oh)
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses an apparatus for user authentication, the apparatus configured to:
receive signalling indicative of one or more user inputs in a sequence provided to a sensing surface of a force sensor, each of the user inputs of the sequence having an associated position and an associated force (Figs. 1, 3-4 and related text on page 4 disclose a process of registering security code using touchpad with a force sensor that record directions, forces and sequences as a user touches and drags using his/her finger);
compare the associated position and the associated force of each of the user inputs in the sequence with a passcode position and a passcode force of a passcode sequence, the passcode sequence stored in a memory accessible by the apparatus (Fig. 5 and related text on page 4 discloses the process of authenticating when the user enters a security code using the touchpad and the security code is compared to the registered security code); and
output an positive authentication indication in response to the associated position and the associated force of each of the user inputs in the sequence matching the corresponding passcode position and the passcode force of the passcode sequence (Fig. 5, step S270, par. [0096]).
Regarding claim 3, Oh discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to output a negative authentication indication in response to determining that the associated position and the associated force of each of the user inputs in the sequence do not match the corresponding passcode position and the passcode force of the passcode sequence (Fig. 5, Step S280).
Regarding claim 6, Oh discloses wherein the associated force falls within an associated force range of a plurality of predetermined force ranges, and wherein each of the one or more passcode forces is associated with a corresponding predetermined force range of the plurality of predetermined force ranges (Figs. 7-8 and related text discloses recording strong and weak with duration for each touch based on a certain threshold and an idle time for long and short duration between touches); and
the apparatus is configured to: compare the associated force to the plurality of predetermined force ranges; determine an associated force range of the plurality of predetermined force ranges into which the associated force falls; compare the associated force range of each of the user inputs in the sequence with the passcode force range of the passcode sequence, the passcode force range being one of the plurality of predetermined force ranges; and output an positive authentication indication in response to the associated position and the associated force range of each of the user inputs in the sequence matching the corresponding passcode position and a corresponding passcode force range of the passcode sequence (Figs. 9-10 discloses the embodiment of registering and authenticating security code based on force magnitude and idle time in addition to the embodiment disclosed in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Oh discloses, wherein the plurality of predetermined force ranges have respective upper and lower force bounds, the respective upper and lower force bounds determined according to a sample of user inputs provided to the sensing surface of the force sensor (see same citation in claim 6 rejection).
Regarding claim 8, Oh discloses where the positive authentication indication comprises one or more of: a visual indicator output to alert a user of the apparatus that the sequence matches the passcode sequence; an audio indicator output to alert a user of the apparatus that the sequence matches the passcode sequence; a haptic indicator output to alert a user of the apparatus that the sequence matches the passcode sequence; and unlocking functionality of a device associated with the passcode sequence (Fig. 5, step S270 for notification if security code is correctly entered).
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses in response to receiving each of the user inputs having an associated position and an associated force, output a force input indicator indicative of a magnitude of the force applied (Fig. 6 discloses the output 400 outputs feedback, a sound effect, a warning signal, and the like, according to a touch input under the control of the processor 200. The output 400 includes a vibrator 410 and an audio output 420. The output 400 may include a display displaying visual information).
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses a system comprising: the apparatus of claim 1; and a force sensor configured to detect the position and the force of a user input provided to a sensing surface of the force sensor, and transmit the signalling indicative of one or more user inputs in a sequence provided to the sensing surface of the force sensor to the apparatus (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 12, Oh discloses at least one control module connected to the force sensor, the control module configured to convert an analogue force signal received from the force sensor in response to a force applied to the force sensor, to a digital force signal representative of the force applied to the force sensor (Fig. 6 and related text discloses a touchpad and a force sensor and the application can apply to a force-based touch interface such as to a mobile terminal, a portable computer, a vehicle glove box locking device, a door locking device, or a digital doorlock, and the like. This suggests the system can comprise device/module as claimed that handle analog or digital signal).
Claim 16 is rejected in view of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Pub 20130057496 (hereinafter Hong)
Regarding claim 2, Oh discloses using a touchpad where 8 possible directions are recognized as shown inf Fig. 3 for each time the user touches the touchpad then drag it can constitute a value. Oh further discloses a value of D6-D3-D8-D4 as a security code when the user touches four or more time. However, Oh does not disclose the touchpad is a keyboard equivalent. Hong discloses using similar touch and drag to unlock a cellphone where the motion of touch and drag is recognized in similar direction like Oh’s invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Hong to further teach wherein each of the associated positions corresponds to respective keys of a keyboard, the respective key having an associated key value and configured to apply force to the force sensor at the corresponding associated positions, and wherein the passcode position of a passcode sequence corresponds to an associated passcode key value. one would have done so to implement Oh’s touchpad as keyboard as an obvious variation and still obtain the same result for authenticating security code using touch and drag motion.
Claims 13-14 are rejected in view of claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected in view of 2 since Hong discloses unlocking the phone for access once the security code entered is correct. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Hong to further teach the claimed feature. One would have done so to implement a process to allow access to the phone, as shown in Hong an obvious variation, once the security code is authenticated, since Oh discloses the invention can apply to a mobile terminal, a portable computer, a vehicle glove box locking device, a door locking device, or a digital doorlock, and the like.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Pub CN-110413189-A (hereinafter Taifang Tech)
Regarding claim 8, Oh does not disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to: process the received signalling indicative of one or more user inputs in a sequence having an associated position and an associated force using an trained AI model to determine the associated force. Taifang Tech discloses this feature (Fig. 1, par. [0038]-[0043] discloses calculating force and position using machine learning algorithms to determine which or if a valid key is input by a user on a virtual keyboard). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Taifang Tech to further teach the aforementioned feature. one would have done so to improve detection for better accuracy which key are touched on a touchpad by using AI to train detection process.
Claim 15 is rejected in view of claim 8 where Taifang Tech using a virtual keyboard. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh with Taifang Tech to further teach the touchpad is a virtual keyboard. One would have done so implement a touchpad as keypad or a virtual keyboard as an obvious variation.
Inquiry communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
/TRI M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432