CTFR 18/940,980 CTFR 84549 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 02/24/2026. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 14 and 19 were amended; claims 1, 12 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) . Regarding claim 1 , Vidmar discloses a method of performing an authenticated action in a computer system, the method comprising: detecting a set of gestures performed by a specific user; (Vidmar discloses in [0050]-[0054], [0058], FIG 3, Step 310 detecting a set of gestures performed by a specific user) determining, using a machine learning model system, whether the set of gestures corresponds to the authenticated action (Vidmar discloses [0055]-[0060], [0077]-[0081] determining, using a machine learning model system, whether the set of gestures corresponds to the authenticated action) and is performed by the specific user for the authentication action; and (Vidmar discloses in [0063]-[0069], [0071]-[0072] discloses and is performed by the specific user for the authentication action; [0077]-[0081], [0088]-[0091] and claim 1) performing the authenticated action in the computer system in response to determining that the set of gestures corresponds to the authenticated action and is performed by the specific user for the authenticated action, (Vidmar discloses [0042], [0077]-[0081] performing the authenticated action in the computer system in response to determining that the set of gestures corresponds to the authenticated action and is performed by the specific user for the authenticated action [0088]-[0091], [0093], also see claims 1, 9 and 11) Regarding claim 12 , claim 12 is a directed to a computer system. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 19 , claim 19 is a directed to a computer program product. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 6, 9-11, 13, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) and further in view of Lu et al (“Lu,” US 20200250413) . Regarding claim 2 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of gestures is performed in air. However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses wherein the set of gestures is performed in air, (Lu discloses in [0033] that the user write the ID string and pass-code in the air for in-air handwriting) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar to include wherein the set of gestures is performed in air. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 6 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: training the machine learning model system to recognize the set of gestures comprising an anatomy of the specific user and movements of a number of body parts by the specific user However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses further comprising: training the machine learning model system to recognize the set of gestures comprising an anatomy of the specific user and movements of a number of body parts by the specific user, (Lu discloses [0087]-[0088] training/using a neural network to recognize gestures comprising hand geometry [0033] [anatomy] and [0038], [0035] captured motion signal/trajectory while writing [movements of a number of body parts by a specific user]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar to include further comprising: training the machine learning model system to recognize the set of gestures comprising an anatomy of the specific user and movements of a number of body parts by the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 9 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of gestures spells out at least one of a secret or a password, However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses wherein the set of gestures spells out at least one of a secret or a password, (Lu discloses [0033] the in-air handwriting [gestures] spells out the passcode spells out a secret) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar to include wherein the action is a lexical item spelled out by the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 10 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of gestures is a signature of the specific user However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses wherein the set of gestures is a signature of the specific user, ( Lu discloses [0033] the in-air handwriting [gestures] is a signature of the user) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar to include wherein the action is a lexical item spelled out by the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 11 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar discloses wherein the machine learning model system comprises at least one of a neural network, a convolutional neural network, a recurrent neural network, a random forest, a support vector machine, a large language model, or a transformer model. However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses wherein the machine learning model system comprises at least one of a neural network, (Lu, [0032], deep neural network) a convolutional neural network, (Lu discloses [0035] a deep convolutional neural network) a recurrent neural network, a random forest, a support vector machine, a large language model, or a transformer model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar to include wherein the machine learning model system comprises at least one of a neural network, a convolutional neural network, a recurrent neural network, a random forest, a support vector machine, a large language model, or a transformer model. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 13 , claim 13 is a directed to the computer system of claim 12. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 17 , claim 17 is a directed to the computer system of claim 12. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 18 , Vidmar discloses the computer system of claim 12. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of gestures comprises letters and wherein the operations further comprise: training the machine learning model system to recognize handwriting of the specific user based on biomechanics of the specific user. However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses wherein the set of gestures comprises letters and wherein the operations further comprise: training the machine learning model system to recognize handwriting of the specific user based on biomechanics of the specific user, (Lu discloses in [0032]-[0033], [0088], [0091] wherein the set of gestures comprises letters and wherein the operations further comprise: training the machine learning model system to recognize handwriting of the specific user based on biomechanics of the specific user) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar to include wherein the set of gestures comprises letters and wherein the operations further comprise: training the machine learning model system to recognize handwriting of the specific user based on biomechanics of the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 20 , claim 20 is a directed to the computer program product of claim 19. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) and further in view of Imura et al (“Imura,” “A Hand Gesture-Based Method for Biometric Authentication,” 2018, Pages 554-566) . Regarding claim 3 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar further discloses analyzing biomechanics of the specific user to identify and authenticate the user (See Vidmar, [0063]-[0065], [0068]-[0071]). Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining comprises: analyzing biomechanics of the specific user derived from the four-dimensional data representing positions of one or more body parts of the specific user over time. However, in an analogous art, Imura discloses wherein determining comprises: analyzing biomechanics of the specific user derived from the four-dimensional data representing positions of one or more body parts of the specific user over time, (Imura, Pages 550, Section 4.2 under Representation of 3D Hand Gestures describes a time-based sequence of 3D positions including x-position, y-position, z-position and time [four-dimensional data, which is x, y, z, and t]; Page 555, Abstract, Page 564, Conclusion and Future Work describes fingertips and finger joints are one or more body parts. The use of those positions as biometric data for authentication [analyzing biomechanics of the specific user) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Imura with Vidmar to include wherein the biomechanics comprises at least one of an anatomy or movement of the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide a new biometric method based on 3D hand gestures (Imura, Page 564, Last Paragraph). Regarding claim 14 , claim 14 is a directed to the computer system of claim 12. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) and further in view of Deng et al (“Deng,” “Enhanced In-Air Signature Verification via Hand Skeleton Tracking to Defeat Robot-Level Replays,” 2023, Pages 451-462) . Regarding claim 4 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the biomechanics comprises at least one of an anatomy or movement of the specific user. However, in an analogous art, Deng discloses wherein the biomechanics comprises at least one of an anatomy or movement of the specific user, (Deng, Page 452, Left Column, Second paragraph discloses hand skeleton/multi-joint motion and kinematic structure; Page 455, Left Column, Second Paragraph describes with inter-joint motion relationships) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Deng with Vidmar to include wherein the biomechanics comprises at least one of an anatomy or movement of the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide 3D hand skeleton signature verification system to address behavioral biometric security under the threat of emerging motion-copy robots (Deng, Page 461, Right Column, Under Section 7, Conclusion) Regarding claim 15 , claim 15 is a directed to the computer system of claim 14. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) and further in view of Imura et al (“Imura,” “A Hand Gesture-Based Method for Biometric Authentication,” 2018, Pages 554-566) and further in view of Lu et al (“Lu,” US 20200250413) . Regarding claim 5 , Vidmar and Imura disclose the method of claim 3. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: training the machine learning model system to recognize the set of gestures performed by the specific user based on the biomechanics of the specific user However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses further comprising: training the machine learning model system to recognize the set of gestures performed by the specific user based on the biomechanics of the specific user, (Lu discloses [0099], [0035], training/using a deep CNN-based model of the in-air handwriting signal [0033] as part of the identification/authentication framework [0032]-[0033] and also discloses [0093] a registration template used for comparing captured signals [recognizing the set of gestures performed by the specific user based on user traits [biomechanics] of the specific user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar and Imura to include further comprising wherein the set of gestures is performed in air. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Regarding claim 16 , claim 16 is a directed to the computer system of claim 14. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) and further in view of Bashir et al (“Bashir,” "Person Authentication by Handwriting in Air Using Biometric Smart Pen Device," 2011, Pages 219-226) . Regarding claim 7 , Vidmar discloses the method of claim 1. Vidmar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of gestures comprise handwriting forming a lexical item corresponding to the authenticated action, and wherein determining includes analyzing biomechanics of the specific user associated with the handwriting. However, in an analogous art, Bashir discloses wherein the set of gestures comprise handwriting forming a lexical item corresponding to the authenticated action, and wherein determining includes analyzing biomechanics of the specific user associated with the handwriting, (Bashir, Pages 220-222 describe handwriting in air which is a gesture set comprising handwriting; Pages 221 describes handwritten single characters and PIN [handwriting forming a lexical item]; Pages 221-222 describe handwritten PIN words are used for authentication/access control; Pages 222-225, describe measured acceleration, tilt, grip forces, pressure, time-series dynamics [biomechanical characteristics associated with handwriting]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bashir with Vidmar to include wherein the set of gestures comprise handwriting forming a lexical item corresponding to the authenticated action, and wherein determining includes analyzing biomechanics of the specific user associated with the handwriting. One would have been motivated to provide biometric authentication using handwriting in air using a biometric smart pen device (Bashir, Pages 219, Abstract and Page 221, Section 3) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidmar et al (“Vidmar,” US 20250094961) in view of Bashir et al (“Bashir,” "Person Authentication by Handwriting in Air Using Biometric Smart Pen Device," 2011, Pages 219-226) and further in view of Lu et al (“Lu,” US 20200250413) . Regarding claim 8 , Vidmar and Bashir discloses the method of claim 7. Vidmar and Bashir fail to explicitly disclose wherein the action is a lexical item spelled out by the specific user However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses wherein the action is a lexical item spelled out by the specific user, (Lu discloses [0008], [0038], [0033] the user writes an ID string [lexical item] and/or a meaningful phrase [0033] as part of a login [0105]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with Vidmar and Bashir to include wherein the action is a lexical item spelled out by the specific user. One would have been motivated to provide a three-dimensional in-the-air finger motion based user login framework for gesture interface which tracks finger motion and hand geometry of the user (Lu, [0002]). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M.. 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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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. /JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439 /LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 2 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 3 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 4 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 5 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 6 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 7 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 8 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 9 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 10 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 11 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 12 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 13 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 14 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 16 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/940,980 Page 17 Art Unit: 2439
Prosecution Insights