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 Office action is responsive to Preliminary Amendment filed on 11/11/2024.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2024, 02/16/2025, 03/19/2025, 04/07/2025, 04/16/2025, 05/15/2025, 06/04/2025, 06/27/2025, 09/02/2025, 09/09/2025, 09/26/2025, 11/11/2025, 12/08/2025, 12/12/2025, and 01/23/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities;
Claim 6, “a user” in line 3, should be – the user --.
Claim 6, “the hardware and software” in line 9, should be -- hardware and software --.
Claim 8, “a device” in line 5, should be – the apparatus --.
Claim 12, “the device” in line 4, should be – the apparatus --.
Claim 13, “a user” in line 3, should be – the user --.
Claim 13, “the device” in lines 7, 9 and 11-12, should be – the apparatus --.
Claim 15, “a device” in line 4, should be – the mobile device --.
Claim 15, “a threshold” in line 12, should be – the threshold --.
Claim 19, “the device” in line 4, should be – the mobile device --.
Claim 20, “a user” in line 3, should be – the user --.
Claim 20, “the hardware and software” in line 9, should be -- hardware and software --.
Claim 20, “the device” in lines 7, 9 and 11-12, should be – the mobile device --.
Appropriate 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 8 recite receiving sensor data; performing trust score analytics to generate an aggregated trust score, wherein performing the trust score analytics includes a base phase running in a background of a device, wherein the base phase comprises analyzing a gait of a user; and performing a trust score challenge when the aggregated trust score is below a threshold to generate an updated aggregated trust score. The limitations of receiving sensor data, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in human mind but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the receiving and performing steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of performing trust score analytics to generate an aggregated trust score, wherein performing the trust score analytics includes a base phase running in a background of a device, wherein the base phase comprises analyzing a gait of a user; and performing a trust score challenge when the aggregated trust score is below a threshold to generate an updated aggregated trust score) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using a processor to perform the receiving and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims 1-14 are not patent eligible.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of U. S. Patent No. 12,143,419 B2. Although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims contain elements of the patent claims, therefore, the examined claim is anticipated by the patent claim as follows:
Current Application No. 18/942,900
US Patent No. 12,143,419 B2
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 8
Independent Claim 7
Independent Claim 15
Independent Claim 13
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budman et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0066071 A1) hereinafter Budman in view of Naimark et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0363427 A1) hereinafter Naimark.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Budman discloses a method and an apparatus (fig. 12, system 1200) comprising:
a memory (fig. 12, memory 1204/1206/1216) for storing an application (para 0104. The storage unit 1216 includes a machine-readable medium 1222 on which is stored instructions 1224 (e.g., software)),
the application configured for:
receiving sensor data (para 0020, The data may be collected using one or more of the following: cameras, motion sensors, GPS, WiFi (SSID/BSSID, signal strength, location, if provided), and multitude of other sensors capable of recording user data and para 0032, receives motion data 210 recorded by a sensor, for example a gyroscope or accelerometer embedded in a mobile device);
performing trust score analytics to generate an aggregated trust score (para 0042, the identity combination module 240 may combine the distinct identity confidence values generated by each model into a single, more comprehensive identity confidence value at a point in time. As described herein, such a comprehensive identity confidence value is referred to as an “aggregate identity confidence.”);
wherein performing the trust score analytics includes a base phase (para 0030, The identity verification system 130 may include an identity block generator 220, an identity computation module 230, an identity combination module 240, a confidence evaluation module 250, and a secondary authentication module 260. In some embodiments, the identity verification system 130 includes additional modules or components);
wherein the base phase comprising analyzing a gait of a user (para 0033, the system may segment motion data 210 into three portions: a user entering into a building with a quick stride, walking up the stairs, and then slowing to a standing still position in the room. Using the segmented motion data 210, the system is able to more accurately identify the user and to ensure a timely response to a user requesting access to an enterprise); and
performing a trust score challenge when the aggregated trust score is below a threshold to generate an updated aggregated trust score (para 0089, despite the combination of identity confidence values from multiple sources, the aggregate identity confidence may still be below an operational security threshold. Accordingly, the identity computation module 230 requests secondary authentication and, in response to receiving a secondary identity confidence value, the identity combination module 240 executes a second round of processing to combine the secondary identity confidence value with the aggregate identity confidence to generate an updated aggregate identity confidence); and
a processor (fig. 12, processor 1202) configured for processing the application (para 0101, read instructions from a machine-readable medium and execute them in a processor), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Naimark discloses the base phase running in the background of a device (para 0072, Other applications automatically estimate ongoing activity based on GPS and inertial sensors (IMU) feeds without user interaction or even constantly running in background of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Budman to include the base phase running in the background of a device as taught by Naimark in order to monitor user activities such as walking, running, cycling, etc. (Naimark, para 0072).
Regarding claim 15, Budman discloses a system (fig. 1, system 100) comprising:
a mobile device (para 0026, computing device 110 herein as a mobile device) configured for:
receiving sensor data (para 0020, The data may be collected using one or more of the following: cameras, motion sensors, GPS, WiFi (SSID/BSSID, signal strength, location, if provided), and multitude of other sensors capable of recording user data and para 0032, receives motion data 210 recorded by a sensor, for example a gyroscope or accelerometer embedded in a mobile device);
performing trust score analytics to generate an aggregated trust score (para 0042, the identity combination module 240 may combine the distinct identity confidence values generated by each model into a single, more comprehensive identity confidence value at a point in time. As described herein, such a comprehensive identity confidence value is referred to as an “aggregate identity confidence.”);
wherein performing the trust score analytics includes a base phase (para 0030, The identity verification system 130 may include an identity block generator 220, an identity computation module 230, an identity combination module 240, a confidence evaluation module 250, and a secondary authentication module 260. In some embodiments, the identity verification system 130 includes additional modules or components);
wherein the base phase comprising analyzing a gait of a user (para 0033, the system may segment motion data 210 into three portions: a user entering into a building with a quick stride, walking up the stairs, and then slowing to a standing still position in the room. Using the segmented motion data 210, the system is able to more accurately identify the user and to ensure a timely response to a user requesting access to an enterprise); and
performing a trust score challenge when the aggregated trust score is below a threshold to generate an updated aggregated trust score (para 0089, despite the combination of identity confidence values from multiple sources, the aggregate identity confidence may still be below an operational security threshold. Accordingly, the identity computation module 230 requests secondary authentication and, in response to receiving a secondary identity confidence value, the identity combination module 240 executes a second round of processing to combine the secondary identity confidence value with the aggregate identity confidence to generate an updated aggregate identity confidence);
a transaction server (fig. 1, system 130 including modules and severs) configured for: sending a transaction request (para 0044-0045, communicates a request to the secondary authentication module 260 to implement a secondary authentication mechanism) ; and
determining if the aggregated trust score or the updated aggregated trust score are above a threshold (para 0091, If the aggregate identity confidence is greater than the threshold, the target user is granted access); and
a cloud server (fig. 1, system 130 including modules and servers) configured for providing resources and services to the mobile device (para 0061, if a user is granted access to the digital medical files, the operational security module 520 may determine the operational context to be a hospital server), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Naimark discloses the base phase running in the background of a device (para 0072, Other applications automatically estimate ongoing activity based on GPS and inertial sensors (IMU) feeds without user interaction or even constantly running in background of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Budman to include the base phase running in the background of a device as taught by Naimark in order to monitor user activities such as walking, running, cycling, etc. (Naimark, para 0072).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Budman Naimark discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein the application is further configured for: enabling a transaction when the aggregated trust score or the updated aggregated trust score is equal to or above the threshold (Budman para 0061 and 0091).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Budman Naimark discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein performing the trust score challenge includes utilizing a stack with modules that are algorithmically selected (Budman para 0030).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Budman Naimark discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein performing the trust score analytics further includes a pre-transaction phase (Budman para 0061 and 0091), an environmental phase (Budman para 0061), a device phase (Budman para 0085) and a hijack phase (Budman para 0057), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Naimark discloses wherein the base phase runs continuously in the background of the device (para 0072, Other applications automatically estimate ongoing activity based on GPS and inertial sensors (IMU) feeds without user interaction or even constantly running in background of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Budman to include the base phase runs continuously in the background of the device as taught by Naimark in order to monitor user activities such as walking, running, cycling, etc. (Naimark, para 0072).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Budman Naimark discloses the apparatus of claim 12 wherein the base phase further includes: performing an image/video scan of a user, and/or analyzing a voice of the user (Budman para 0034), the environmental phase includes: determining a location of the device, and/or determining ambient information (Budman para 0061), the device phase includes analysis of the hardware and software of the device (Budman para 0056 and 0085), and the hijacking phase includes: determining a pickup of the device, and/or determining a handoff of the device (Budman para 0057).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, the combination of Budman Naimark discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein performing the trust score challenge includes: image analysis, human movement analysis, voice prints analysis, personal information testing, directed action analysis, and/or static biometrics testing (Budman para 0021, 0044, 0048, 0075, and 0088).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budman and Naimark as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of Sagi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0242417 A1) hereinafter Sagi.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Budman Naimark discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein performing the trust score analytics includes utilizing a trust analytics graph (Budman, para 0034 and 0098), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Sagi discloses a weighted decision tree (Fig. 7, para 0057 and 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Budman to include a decision tree as taught by Sagi in order to prevent fraudulent transactions from occurring (Sagi, para 0019).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOTRAN N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-8156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on 571-270-3351. 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.
/BAOTRAN N TO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435