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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on an application 17/168,301 (USPN 12218931) filed on 2/5/21.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner reviewed IDS document(s) received on 10/25/24, carefully considering the art cited within the document(s).
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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. No. 12/218,931. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they either recite a concomitance of the claim features, or they are their obvious modifications.
Specifically, the instant claims are the broader version of the patented claims. For example, compare the instant claims 1 and 7 with the patented claim 1, for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, the limitation
“… the conferencing service obtains the first facial feature information or the second facial feature information by a server of the conferencing service...”
is not understood. It is not clear whether it should be read as
the conferencing service obtains … 1) via a server of the conferencing service, 2) from a server of the conferencing service or, whether applicant consider some other interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hassan (USPUB 20200272716).
Hasan teaches authenticating a user in response to identifying the user from the authentication image and matching the image to a reference image of the user (see abstract).
As per claim 1, Hassan teaches receiving first facial feature information for a user from a first device, determining that the user can be authenticated using a second device that captures second facial feature information, wherein the second device is different from the first device and receiving the second facial feature information for the user from the second device (as seen in Fig. 1-2 and discussed in the related text, e.g., an image captured by the proximate device 106 is compared to an image captured by the collaboration device 102. Comparing the two images may include determining whether a threshold number of facial features match between the two images, para 11-14).
Given the fact that computing devices operate using numbers as well as Boolean algebra, authenticating the user by matching the authentication image to a reference image of the user meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of authenticating a user in response to identifying the user from the authentication image, determining a confidence score indicating a confidence level that the user has been authenticated correctly, wherein the confidence score is determined based on the first facial feature information and the second facial feature information; and authenticating the user based on the confidence score.
As per claim 3 the value of the first authentication try would meet the limitation of “a first confidence score” and clearly a skilled in the art would readily appreciate that there in some situations this value would not be sufficient, e.g., not match.
A per claims 8, 10, 17-18, computing steps are performed by computing devices using processors executing instructions stored on computing media.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Os (UPSUB 11765163).
Van Os teaches facial recognition authentication using different biometric sensors, where if the first captured data fail to recognize the user, the biometric data is captured by other biometric sensor (see col. 168 lines 1-19).
Given the fact that computing devices use numbers and Boolean algebra to evaluate results, the teaching addresses the limitations of receiving first facial feature information for a user from a first device, determining that the user can be authenticated using a second device that captures second facial feature information, wherein the second device is different from the first device and receiving the second facial feature information for the user from the second device; determining a confidence score indicating a confidence level that the user has been authenticated correctly, wherein the confidence score is determined based on the first facial feature information and the second facial feature information; and authenticating the user based on the confidence score.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Hassan (USPUB 20200272716) in view of Azar (USPUB 20140123275).
Hasan’s teaches the first/second device obtaining the first/second facial feature as discussed above. Furthermore, Hasan’s invention applies to video conference calls that includes meeting room devices (see para 1, 9, 24, 35, etc.).
Although Hasan’s teaches is directed towards the facial authentication, Hasan does not teach the authentication being during a conferencing service.
However, Azar teaches such solution (user continuously authenticated one the user has gained access, see para 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Azar’s invention given the benefit of increased security.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Hassan (USPUB 20200272716) in view of Azar (USPUB 20140123275) and, further in view of Borzycki (USPUB 20140109210).
Hasan’s teaches obtaining the second feature information based on the user attending a meeting but fails to teach determining that the user is attending a meeting based on calendar information or presence tool information.
However, Borzycki teaches such solution (se Abstract, system may query the meeting organizer’s calendar for meeting information to notify and notify that the meeting has begun). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to include Borzycki’s teaching into Hassan as modified invention given the benefit of usability.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Van Os (UPSUB 11765163) in view of Azar (USPUB 20140123275).
As discussed above, Van Os as modified teaches obtaining the second feature information based on the user attending a meeting but fails to teach determining that the user is attending a meeting based on calendar information or presence tool information.
However, Borzycki teaches such solution (se Abstract, system may query the meeting organizer’s calendar for meeting information to notify and notify that the meeting has begun). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to include Borzycki’s teaching into Van Os’ as modified invention given the benefit of usability.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 8-10, 13-14, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Van Os (UPSUB 11765163) in view of Avrahami (JP6642191).
As per claims Van Os teaches facial recognition authentication using different biometric sensors, where if the first captured data fail to recognize the user, the biometric data is captured by other biometric sensor (see col. 168 lines 1-19).
Given the fact that computing devices use numbers and Boolean algebra to evaluate results, the teaching addresses the limitations of receiving first facial feature information for a user from a first device, determining that the user can be authenticated using a second device that captures second facial feature information, wherein the second device is different from the first device and receiving the second facial feature information for the user from the second device; determining a confidence score indicating a confidence level that the user has been authenticated correctly, wherein the confidence score is determined based on the first facial feature information and the second facial feature information; and authenticating the user based on the confidence score.
Van Os does not relate to the conferencing service and that the data being transmitted to the conferencing service. However, Avrahami suggests such solution (one or more users may join a video conference, where capture of facial data of the user is changed from one device to another in the event is detected, see pg. 5. The selection of the camera is based on a better view of the conference participant, e.g., the selection of camera is based on the best parameter evaluation such as brightness, contrast, clarity or a combination of these factors, pg. 5 and 11, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to extend Van Os teaching into the Avrahami’s invention given the benefit of user authentication. Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Avrahami’s teaching into Van Os teaching given the benefit of increased quality.
In light of teaching Van Os/Avrahami’s of selection of camera for authentication based on the best parameter evaluation such as brightness, contrast, clarity or a combination of these factors, the limitation of claims 3, 6-7 (and similar claims), if not inherent, would have been at least implicit. Clearly there would have to be some value identifying the parameters in order to make such decision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights