CTNF 18/959,150 CTNF 89825 DETAILED ACTION 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 2/18/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-4 & 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claims and could be used to reject them . 08-34 AIA Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claim and could be used to reject it . 08-34 AIA Claim s 6 & 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claim and could be used to reject it . 08-34 AIA Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claim and could be used to reject it . 08-34 AIA Claim s 10-13 & 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claims and they render the current claims obvious since they are directed to a system rather than a processor implemented method . 08-34 AIA Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claim and could be used to reject it . 08-34 AIA Claim s 15 & 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claim and could be used to reject it . 08-34 AIA Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claim and could be used to reject it . 08-34 AIA Claim s 19 & 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,576 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent is narrower than the current claims and they render the current claims obvious since they are directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions to cause a processor to implement a method rather than a processor implemented method . 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Beck et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0057845) . As per claims 1, 10 and 19, Beck et al. discloses: A system comprising: memory storing instructions (Figure 1, item 110 and Paragraphs [0003] & [0018-0019]) ; and one or more processors operable to execute the instructions (Figure 1, item 110 and Paragraphs [0003] & [0018-0019]) to: determine that an automated assistant has received a request (Paragraph [0001], "a user may interact with a digital assistant resident on a device via an input device (e.g., a voice input module, a gesture input module, a touch input module, etc.) to provide various types of command inputs (e.g., queries, action requests, etc.)'') that is subject to user authentication (Paragraph [0002], "receiving, at an information handling device, a touchless command to perform an action; determining, using a processor, whether the action is one of: a protected action and an unprotected action; and requesting, responsive to determining that the action is associated with a protected action, user authentication input prior to performing the action"; Paragraph [0032], "responsive to determining, at 302, that the action corresponds to a protected action, an embodiment may request, at 303. user authentication input prior to performing the action'') , wherein the automated assistant is accessible via a computing device, and the request is embodied in an assistant input from a particular user (Paragraph [0001], "a user may interact with a digital assistant resident on a device via an input device (e.g., a voice input module, a gesture input module, a touch input module, etc.) to provide various types of command inputs (e.g., queries, action requests ,etc.)'') ; solicit a first device for first device data and a second device for second device data in furtherance of authenticating the particular user who provided the assistant input to the automated assistant, wherein the first device and the second device are separate from the computing device (Paragraph [0034], "responsive to determining that an action associated with a user command corresponds to a protected action, the target device may communicate with one or more other devices in a connectable network (e.g., one or more home automation devices, one or more Internet of Things devices, etc.) and request them to obtain user authentication data ... the laptop may communicate with a smart speaker proximate to the user to obtain facial recognition data'') ; receive, in response to the soliciting, the first device data from the first device and the second device data from the second device, wherein the first device data and the second device data each indicate a corresponding degree to which the particular user is predicted to have provided the assistant input (Paragraph [0034], "responsive to determining that an action associated with a user command corresponds to a protected action, the target device may communicate with one or more other devices in a connectable network (e.g., one or more home automation devices, one or more Internet of Things devices, etc.) and request them to obtain user authentication data ... the laptop may communicate with a smart speaker proximate to the user to obtain facial recognition data": Paragraph [0033], "a user may be authenticated using one or more, user authentication techniques known in the art such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification. smart card, etc.'') determine, based on the first device data and the second device data received in response to soliciting the first device and the second device, whether the assistant input was provided by the particular user (Paragraph [0037], "determine whether the user authentication input corresponds to an authorized user'') ; and when the assistant input is determined to have been provided by the particular user: cause the automated assistant to perform, for the particular user, one or more operations in furtherance of fulfilling the request embodied in the assistant input (Paragraph [0037], "Responsive to determining that the characteristics of the user match those of an authorized user in the database, an embodiment may thereafter perform the protected action') . Claim 1 is directed to the method of using the system of claim 10, so is rejected for similar reasons. Claim 19 is directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions to cause a processor to act as the system of claim 10, so is rejected for similar reasons. As per claims 2 and 11, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Beck et al. further discloses: the first device data includes non-biometric data (Paragraph [0033] – the authentication data can include the use of a smart card) . As per claims 6 and 15, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Beck et al. further discloses: the corresponding degree, that is indicated by the first device data, is based on a first authentication process and wherein the corresponding degree, that is indicated by the second device data, is based on a second authentication process (Paragraph [0034], "responsive to determining that an action associated with a user command corresponds to a protected action, the target device may communicate with one or more other devices in a connectable network (e.g., one or more home automation devices, one or more Internet of Things devices, etc.) and request them to obtain user authentication data ... the laptop may communicate with a smart speaker proximate to the user to obtain facial recognition data": Paragraph [0033], "a user may be authenticated using one or more, user authentication techniques known in the art such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification. smart card, etc.'') . As per claims 7 and 16, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 6 and 15. Beck et al. further discloses: the first authentication process is a presence authentication process (Paragraph [0033], "a user may be authenticated using one or more, user authentication techniques known in the art such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification. smart card, etc.' ') Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0057845) in view of Casado et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0110864) As per claims 3 and 12, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. Beck et al. fails to explicitly disclose, but Casado et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses: the corresponding degree, that is indicated by the first device data, is based on when the particular user is last predicted to have interacted with the first device (Paragraphs [0075 & [0108]) . It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Beck et al. with the historical access records of Casedo et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As per claims 4 and 13, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. Beck et al. fails to explicitly disclose, but Casado et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses: the corresponding degree, that is indicated by the second device data, is based on when the particular user is last predicted to have interacted with the second device (Paragraphs [0075 & [0108]) . It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Beck et al. with the historical access records of Casedo et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0057845) in view of Larson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0366671) As per claims 5 and 14, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. Beck et al. fails to explicitly disclose, but Larson et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses: assigning a first weight value to the first device data, and assigning a second weight value to the second device data, and wherein the first weight value exceeds the second weight value ( Paragraph [0056]) . It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Beck et al. with the data weighting of Larson et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0057845) in view of Jakubzak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0068599) As per claims 8 and 17, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 7 and 16. Beck et al. fails to explicitly disclose but Jakubzak et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches: the second authentication process is a voice authentication process (Abstract – facial recognition and voice recognition). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Beck et al. with the Voice recognition of Jakubzak et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0057845) in view of Bakish et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0232511) As per claims 9, 18 and 20, Beck et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19. Beck et al. fails to explicitly disclose but Bakish et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches: soliciting the first device for the first device data and the second device for the second device data is performed prior to determining that the automated assistant has received the request that is subject to user authentication (Paragraphs [0061-0063] & [0109] - data is gathered by the imager and optical microphone before and during a personal assistant request and then acquired by the system for user authentication, including via facial recognition) ;. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Beck et al. with the data requests of Bakish because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Examiner Notes The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F. 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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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. /EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 2 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 3 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 4 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 5 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 6 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 7 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 8 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 9 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 10 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 11 Art Unit: 2654 Application/Control Number: 18/959,150 Page 12 Art Unit: 2654
Prosecution Insights