DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 10/25/2024. Applicant selected claims 1-14 in response to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-14 are pending and examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESTRICTION
Applicant’s selection of group 1, comprising claims 1-14, without traverse is acknowledged. Accordingly, the restriction is made FINAL.
OBJECTIONS
Claim 11 is objected to for the following reasons: the claim language is confusing because it appears to require the finger to be two places at once. The claim discloses “wherein the device is configured to gather the fingerprint data when the pressure sensor is pressed by the finger of the user simultaneously with the finger of the user being positioned over the fingerprint sensor” which appears to require the finger to be pressing the pressure sensor while also hovering over a fingerprint sensor – so is the finger pressed down or not pressed down? Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fadell (US 2014/0380465 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A device, comprising:
a device body (paras. [0064]-[0066], Figs. 7, 9: electronic device);
a first exterior surface positioned on a first side of the device body (paras. [0064]-[0067], Figs. 7, 9: top surface of a keyboard positioned on the top side of the electronic device);
a fingerprint sensor positioned on the first exterior surface, the first fingerprint sensor configured to gather fingerprint data of a finger of a user that is placed on the first fingerprint sensor (paras. [0055]-[0058], [0060], Figs. 7, 9: sensors may be placed on top of keys on top of the surface of the electronic device (i.e. first exterior surface) sensors of the authentication system for detecting features of a user’s finger placed on the sensors include: optical, capacitance, sonar or radio-frequency sensors); and
a motion sensor positioned on the first exterior surface adjacent to the fingerprint sensor, the motion sensor configured to detect movement of the finger of the user (paras. [0058], [0061], [0065]-[0067], [0089]: “sensors may be placed at any suitable location within the electronic device” ([0061]) including being placed “in, adjacent to or behind any button or other physical input that a user may press in an electronic device” ([0066]), where the sensors may include capacitance or optical sensors that are positioned on the top surface on keys (such as adjacent or next to a key that is detecting features of the user fingerprint), where the sensors detect movement of the finger in relation to the top surface of the keys and device);
wherein the fingerprint data gathered by the fingerprint sensor and the movement detected by the motion sensor are analyzed to identify the user and determine if the fingerprint of the user is authorized (paras. [0055], [0089]-[0090], [0092]: sensor information is gathered and analyzed in order to authenticate the user by identifying the user via the features and information collected by the sensors and prevent unauthorized access of resources of the electronic device (i.e. determine if fingerprint is authorized)).
While Fadell does not explicitly disclose that a motion sensor is positioned on the first exterior surface adjacent to the fingerprint sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the sensors in the electronic device could be located in any arrangement because Fadell discloses that the sensors “may be placed in any location within the electronic device” (para. [0061]) and “an optical or capacitive sensor may be placed at the top surface of a key” (para. [0065]). In addition, it would be a matter of design choice to position the sensors and keyboard keys in any specific arrangement on top of the electronic device because such an arrangement does not change the functionality of the sensors.
Regarding claim 2, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor detects the movement while the finger is positioned over both the motion sensor and the fingerprint sensor (paras. [0056]-[0057], [0064]-[0067], [0089], Figs. 7, 9: user may have a finger positioned simultaneously over two keys – one measuring motion and the other obtaining details of user fingers, where the two adjacent keys could obtain the movement and fingerprint information).
In addition, it would be a matter of design choice for how the user is prompted to position their fingers in order to provide the electronic device with the authentication information it requires and Fadell encompasses having one or more fingers move in any predetermined manner (para. [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein fingerprint sensor and the motion sensor are inlaid in the first exterior surface of the device body such that a side surface of the first exterior surface is formed perpendicular to a plane of the first exterior surface and is adjacent to the fingerprint sensor and the motion sensor (paras. [0058], [0061], [0065]-[0067], [0089], Figs. 7, 9: “sensors may be placed at any suitable location within the electronic device” ([0061]), where the sensors may include capacitance or optical sensors that are positioned on the top surface on keys (so an optical sensor detecting fingerprint features may inlaid on top of a key next to a capacitance sensor for detecting motion with regard to the key), where the side of the laptop is perpendicular to the top surface of the laptop and the keys may be located near the side of the laptop).
Regarding claim 4, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The device of claim 1, further comprising:
a non-transitory memory; and an integral processor;
wherein the non-transitory memory is configured to store user data, and the integral processor is configured to analyze the gathered fingerprint data and determine if the fingerprint of the user is authorized by comparing the gathered fingerprint data to the stored user data (paras. [0055], [0081]: storing user biometric data and determining if a user fingerprint data is authorized by comparing the obtained fingerprint data to the stored biometric information).
Regarding claim 6, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein when the fingerprint is determined to be authorized, an indication is provided to the user (paras. [0054]-[0055]: when the fingerprint is determined to be authorized, granting the user the requested access (i.e. providing indications)).
Regarding claim 8, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein the movement of the finger of the user is at least one of a side-to-side movement, an up and down movement (paras. [0058], [0061], [0065]-[0067]: capacitance sensors registers movement of finger pushing a key as movement pushing down and releasing (i.e. up and down movement) of keys)).
Regarding claim 9, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is at least one of one or more optical sensors or a capacitive sensor (paras. [0058], [0061], [0065]-[0067]: optical or capacitive sensors).
Regarding claim 13, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to transmit signals from the fingerprint sensor and the motion sensor to a processor (paras. [0031], [0065]-[0067], [0081]: electronic device transmits signals from sensors to processor for storing and comparing).
Regarding claim 14, Fadell teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The device of claim 3, wherein the side surface forms a shape configured to respectively receive the finger of the user (Figs. 7, 9: laptop side is shaped so that user can pick laptop up on sides by placing their fingers and hands on the sides of the laptop (i.e. side surface is shaped so that the user can grab with fingers/hands)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fadell (US 2014/0380465 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kamin-Lyndgaard (US 2015/0103018).
Regarding claim 5, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell does not teach, but in the same field of endeavor, Kamin-Lyndgaard teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to be attachable, through a direct connection by a cable or wire, or wirelessly, to an exterior device, apparatus, or system that includes a processor and non-transitory memory,
wherein the non-transitory memory is configured to store user data, and the processor is configured to analyze the gathered fingerprint data and determine if the fingerprint of the user is authorized by comparing the gathered fingerprint data to the stored user data (paras. [0064], [0125], [0165], [0176]-[0177], [0180], [0182], [0193]: mobile device is connected/attached to a remote server/system, where the fingerprint information is transmitted as part of an authentication code to be authenticated by the server or the mobile device is connected to a protective case which comprises the capacitive sensors and fingerprint information is exchanged with the mobile device and remote servers for storage and authentication).
Kamin-Lyndgaard is combinable with Fadell because both are from the same field of endeavor of using optical and capacitive sensors to obtain fingerprint information for authenticating a user to access resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Kamin-Lyndgaard’s method of remotely storing the user fingerprint information with the system of Fadell in order to save resources on the device by enabling the device to avoid having to perform the authentication computations by shifting the authentication computations and storage requirements to the remotely connected system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fadell (US 2014/0380465 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lane (US 5,623,552).
Regarding claim 7, Fadell teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Fadell does not teach, but in the same field of endeavor, Lane teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The device of claim 6, wherein the indication is the turning on of a light on the device (col. 5, ll. 49-52, col. 9, ll. 1-5 & 49-55, Figs. 2, 14: verification device includes a green LED light for illuminating to indicate a fingerprint was successfully matched).
Lane is combinable with Fadell because all are from the same field of endeavor of using fingerprint sensors to improve authenticating and controlling a user device using fingerprint information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Lane’s method of visually indicating to a user whether a fingerprint has been positively identified with the system of Fadell in order to visually communicate to a user, who may be deaf, whether the fingerprint was accepted or whether it is necessary for the user to provide additional fingerprint information.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fadell (US 2014/0380465 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Graham (US 2013/0321337).
Regarding claim 10, Fadell teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Fadell not teach, but in the same field of endeavor, Graham teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The device of claim 1, further comprising: a pressure sensor configured to be activated by pressing of the finger of the user on the pressure sensor (paras. [0063], [0082], [0086], [0091]: gathering fingerprint information from the user pressing their fingers on a high-dimensional touchpad (HDTP) comprising an array of pressure sensors or tactile sensors including low-resolution capacitive tactile sensors and high-resolution resistive tactile sensors).
Graham is combinable with Fadell because both are from the same field of endeavor of using capacitive sensors to collect fingerprint information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Graham’s method of obtaining fingerprint information from pressure sensors with the system of Fadell in order to enable the sensors of Fadell to be more sensitive to fine movements (Graham, para. [0078]) and be able to distinguish the difference between light and hard presses of the finger (i.e. enabling different commands to be triggered by different types of presses).
Regarding claim 11, Fadell and Graham teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Fadell and Graham teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The device of claim 10, wherein the device is configured to gather the fingerprint data when the pressure sensor is pressed by the finger of the user simultaneously with the finger of the user being positioned over the fingerprint sensor (paras. [0063], [0082], [0084]-[0086], [0091]: gathering fingerprint information from the user pressing their fingers on a high-dimensional touchpad (HDTP) comprising an array of pressure sensors or tactile sensors and capacitive fingerprint scanners (i.e. pressing of a finger is detected by pressure sensors and fingerprint sensors).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 10 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Fadell and Graham teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Graham teaches the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The device of claim 10, wherein the fingerprint of the user is indicated as being authorized when a combination of movement on the motion sensor (Fadell, paras. [0055], [0089]-[0090], [0092]: user is determined to be authenticated/authorized when combination of sensor information is gathered from the capacitive and optical sensors (i.e. motion sensors) including a predetermined sequence) and pressure on the pressure sensor is performed according to a predetermined sequence (Graham, paras. [0063], [0069]: pressure on the pressure sensor is performed according to a recognized patterned sequences of contact).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 10 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Pederson (US 2016/0140379) discloses a fingerprint is authenticated by moving a finger side to side (i.e. rolling) horizontally, vertically or diagonally or to deposit brief taps or pressure bouts on the sensor surface in a character sequence or pressure sequence.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON LYNCH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4583.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights