DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/954,742 filed on 11/21/2024.
Claims 1-11 have been examined and are pending in this application.
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/268,987 filed February 17, 2021, which is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/KR2020/013569 filed October 6, 2020, claiming priority based on Korean Patent Application No. 10-2019-0134799 filed October 28, 2019.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
This application is related to and claimed the benefits of National Stage application no. PCT0KR2020/013569 filed October 6, 2020, claiming priority based on Korean Patent Application No. 10-2019-0134799 filed October 28, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 11/21/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 11/21/2024 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the drawings filed on 11/21/2024 has been accepted.
Specification
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant's specification filed on 11/21/2024 has been accepted.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,239. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are related to apparatus and a method of performing user authentication.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim), Pub. No.: US 2017/0116401 in view of Schneider et al. (hereinafter Schneider), Patent No.: US 9,569,605.
Referring to claim 1, Kim teaches an electronic device comprising:
at least one sensor configured to obtain biometric data (para. 0087 and fig. 6, sensor 620 configured to obtain biometric information);
a memory configured to store a user authentication model including reference date (para. 0089, and fig. 6, memory 640 stores data used for authentication); and
a processor configured to perform a user authentication based on the obtained biometric data and the user authentication model (para. 0088 and fig. 6, the processor 630, perform biometric authentication),
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to add success biometric data that succeeded in the user authentication and previous biometric data obtained before the success biometric data to training date for training the user authentication model.
However, in an analogous art, Schneider teaches wherein the processor is configured to add success biometric data that succeeded in the user authentication and previous biometric data obtained before the success biometric data to training date for training the user authentication model (para. 0029 and fig. 1, detection module 106 may detect the authentication action after the authentication action has occurred. For example, detection module 106 may examine logs to determine when previous authentication actions have occurred and/or may correlate previously captured biometric data with authentication actions that occurred contemporaneously with the capture of the biometric data..).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Kim with the method and system of Schneider, wherein the processor is configured to add success biometric data that succeeded in the user authentication and previous biometric data obtained before the success biometric data to training date for training the user authentication model to provide users with a means for using the biometric data that describes the biometric trait as training data for the biometric authentication option to enable the user to access the protected feature of the device via the biometric authentication option (Schneider: para. 0003).
Referring to claim 2, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the reference data is biometric data of the user obtained in advance through the at least one sensor (Kim: para. 0043, the face info. obtained through a camera, fingerprint sensor).
Referring to claim 3, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the previous biometric data is a predetermined number of biometric data obtained before the success biometric data (Schneider: para. 0029 and fig. 1).
Referring to claim 4, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the previous biometric data is biometric data obtained during a predetermined period before the success biometric data (Schneider: para. 0029 and fig. 1).
Referring to claim 5, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the previous biometric data is a predetermined number of biometric data obtained during a predetermined period before the success biometric data (Schneider: para. 0029, claim 1 and fig. 1).
Referring to claim 6, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the previous biometric data is biometric data acquired within a predetermined time interval before the success biometric data (Schneider: para. 0029, claim 1 and fig. 1).
Referring to claim 7, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the user authentication is successful when the similarity between the obtained biometric data and the reference data is greater than or equal to a reference value (Kim: abstract, paras. 0043, 0087 and fig. 1).
Referring to claim 8, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the at least one sensor is an image sensor (Kim: paras. 0043, 0046, 0087 and fig. 6, 610).
Referring to claim 9, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the biometric data is facial data (para. 0047, biometric data is associated with the face information).
Referring to claim 10, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 11, Kim and Schneider teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the reference data is the facial data corresponding to the user's facial image obtained through the image sensor before authentication of the user (para. 0047-0048).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 04/07/2026
Prosecution Insights