DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 11/25/2024.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, 2, 11, 12, 15, 13, 19, 20, 6, 11 of copending Application No. 19203479 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application contains all the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 19203479 in view of Crego (US 20190280862).
The claim 16 of the instant application differs from the claim 6 of the reference application in that claim 16 of the instant claims discloses “the geographic location of the iris scanning device is displayed in at least one of: a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile application executing on the computing device; or a GUI of a webpage presented in a browser executing on the computing device”. However, Crego teaches this limitation in paragraph [0021], [0030], claim 6 and Fig. 4A. Therefore, it would be obvious for the instant application to modify the invention to include this limitation in order to allow the user to provide the location information for further verification.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable medium. Specification does not define whether the claim limitation “computer-readable medium” is transitory or non-transitory, hence under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim limitation “computer-readable medium” cover transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se which does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Depended claims 16-20 does not overcome deficiency of independent claims, hence are also rejected as non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20190325407), in view of Li (CN 104320414 A).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Zhou discloses:
a computer-readable medium ([0134]);
a camera ([0030], [0057]) configured to:
capture/receive an image of an iris of a first user (By disclosing, “user identification data may be entered by the user 120, retrieved from the memory of the mobile and wearable device 130, or captured by sensors associated with the mobile and wearable device 130” ([0030]); and “The biometric authentication may include one or more of a fingerprint authentication, authentication based on facial recognition, an iris pattern authentication, a heartbeat authentication, and a vein pattern identification.” ([0060])); and
capture/receive an image of a two-dimensional barcode displayed on a display of a computing device of the first user, wherein the two-dimensional barcode represents a public key of a cryptocurrency wallet of the first user (By disclosing, “The processor may be operable to generate an optical code encoding the payment data and the transfer amount and provide the optical code on a screen of the mobile and wearable device. The optical code may include one of the following: a barcode and a Quick Response (QR) code.
Upon scanning of the optical code, a transfer receiving request is created.” ([0006], [0040], [0041], [0030]); “The user may select one of a plurality of
payment methods, which may include paying by Visa, MasterCard or other payment cards or paying using a wallet associated with the cloud-based application.” ([0040]); and “CDCPAY mobile or wearable cryptocurrency wallet stores the public and private keys or CDCPAY addresses, which can be used to receive or spend the CDCPAY cryptocurrency” ([0129], [0114]-[0115]));
a processor ([0133]); and
memory ([0133]) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
generating a code based upon the image of the iris of the first user (By disclosing, “The encrypting of the transfer request may include generating a one-time code. The one-time code may encode at least the user identification data and the transfer amount.” ([0078], [0030], [0060])); and
causing the code to be transmitted to a computing system over a network connection, wherein the computing system causes an amount of cryptocurrency to be transferred to the cryptocurrency wallet of the first user based upon: at least one of the image of the two-dimensional barcode or information associated with the image of the two-dimensional barcode (By disclosing, “Upon establishment of the connection between the mobile and wearable device 130 and the device 150, the payment data and the transfer amount may be sent to the device 150 via the network 110. Based on the payment data and the transfer amount extracted from the optical code or
received via network 110 and recipient identification data stored on the device or entered by the recipient 140, a transfer receiving request may be created…. The transfer amount in the crypto digital currency may be transferred to a recipient account associated with the recipient identification data.” ([0034]-[0035], [0055])).
Zhou does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computing system determines whether the user information is included in a plurality of user information stored in a data store; and causes an amount of currency to be transferred to the first user based upon: a determination that the user information is not included in the plurality of user information (By disclosing, “if the passenger information of boarding information stored in the onboard server do not match, the user finishes the registration of the new user according to the prompt information of user terminal, the onboard server distributes the virtual currency of the game for the new user” ([0084] of Li)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Zhou that encoding user iris information in a code, in view of Li to include wherein the computing system determines whether the user information is included in a plurality of user information stored in a data store; and causes an amount of currency to be transferred to the first user based upon: a determination that the user information is not included in the plurality of user information. Doing so
would result in an improved invention because this would allow the new user to get reward cryptocurrency for registering with the system.
Regarding claim(s) 7, 14, and 20, Zhou discloses:
decoding the two-dimensional barcode to obtain the information associated with the image of the two-dimensional barcode, wherein the information associated with the two-dimensional barcode comprises an address of the cryptocurrency wallet; and causing the address of the cryptocurrency wallet to be transmitted to the computing system (By disclosing, “Upon establishment of the connection between the mobile and wearable device 130 and the device 150, the payment data and the transfer amount may be sent to the device 150 via the network 110. Based on the payment data and the transfer amount extracted from the optical code or received via network 110 and recipient identification data stored on the device or entered by the recipient 140, a transfer receiving request may be created…. The transfer amount in the crypto digital currency may be transferred to a recipient account associated with the recipient identification data….The transfer performed using the crypto digital currency may include …, and a digital wallet payment, and so forth.” ([0034]-[0036], [0055]); “CDCPAY mobile or wearable cryptocurrency wallet stores the public and private keys or CDCPAY addresses, which can be used to receive or spend the CDCPAY cryptocurrency” ([0129], [0114]-[0115])).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20190325407), in view of Li (CN 104320414 A), further in view of Crego (US 20190280862).
Regarding claim(s) 2, 9, Zhou does not disclose, but Crego teaches:
a geolocator that is configured to identify a geographic location in which the iris scanning device is present (By disclosing, “the biometric facial information 105 or the biometric iris information 107 may include a record of real time and location data 111 as it is recognized by at least one optical reader 109, and may be rendered as one of the identity claim 106.” ([0021] of Crego)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Zhou, and Li, in view of Crego to include techniques of identifying a geographic location in which the iris scanning device is present. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the system to use the location data to further verify the authenticity of the user data.
Regarding claim(s) 3, 10, Zhou does not disclose, but Crego teaches:
wherein the geographic location of the iris scanning device is displayed in at least one of: a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile application executing on the computing device; or a GUI of a webpage presented in a browser
executing on the computing device (By disclosing, “a list of the identity claims
from the request 401 of the second device may be shown to the user 301 via the display 413.” ([0030] of Crego); and the request includes the location data of the scan (Fig. 4A, claim 6 of Crego)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Zhou, and Li, in view of Crego to include techniques of wherein the geographic location of the iris scanning device is displayed in at least one of: a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile application executing on the computing device; or a GUI of a webpage presented in a browser executing on the computing device. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to provide the location information for further verification.
Regarding claim(s) 16, Zhou does not disclose, but Crego teaches:
identifying a geographic location in which the iris scanning device is present; wherein the geographic location of the iris scanning device is displayed in at least one of: a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile application executing on the computing device; or a GUI of a webpage presented in a browser executing on the computing device (By disclosing, “the biometric facial information 105 or the biometric iris information 107 may include a record of real time and location data 111 as it is recognized by at least one optical reader 109, and may be rendered as one of the identity claim 106.” ([0021] of Crego); “a list
of the identity claims from the request 401 of the second device may be shown to
the user 301 via the display 413.” ([0030] of Crego); and the request includes the location data of the scan (Fig. 4A, claim 6 of Crego)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Zhou, and Li, in view of Crego to include techniques of identifying a geographic location in which the iris scanning device is present; wherein the geographic location of the iris scanning device is displayed in at least one of: a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile application executing on the computing device; or a GUI of a webpage presented in a browser executing on the computing device. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to provide the location information for further verification.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20190325407), in view of Li (CN 104320414 A), further in view of Starr (US 11232450).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 11, 17, Zhou does not disclose, but Starr teaches:
wherein the iris scanning device is under the control of a second user. (By disclosing, “ POS device 102 may include one or more devices capable of capturing an image of a biometric identification parameter of the customer. For example, POS device 102 may include an image capture device, such as a camera (e.g., a digital camera, a mobile device camera, and/or the like).” (Col 13 lines 9-15 of Starr)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Zhou, and Li, in view of Starr to include techniques of wherein the iris scanning device is under the control of a second user. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the second user to obtain the first user’s biometric data when the first user does not have a mobile device.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20190325407), in view of Li (CN 104320414 A), further in view of Aubert (US 11559086).
Regarding claim(s) 5, 12, and 18, Zhou does not disclose, but Aubert teaches:
prior to transmitting the code: a message from the computing system is received at the computing device operated by the first user, wherein the message indicates that the image of the iris of the first user is to be captured, wherein the message is presented to the first user on the display of the computing device (By disclosing, “Such a method can include displaying a user interface at a remote user computing device 120, as illustrated in FIG. 1, .... An exemplary remote user computing device 120 can be, for example, a laptop or desktop computer, a tablet, or a smartphone. An exemplary user interface 402 as displayed on a display 124 is illustrated in FIGS. 4-8, for instance.” (Col 5 lines
14-22 of Aubert); and “The user then can receive imaging instructions through
the user interface 402, as illustrated in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7” (Col 9 lines 29-38 of Aubert)); and
a response is caused to be transmitted from the computing device to the computer system, wherein the response indicates that the first user has acknowledged the message (By disclosing, “a CONTINUE button 416 that indicates that the user desires to continue interacting with the user interface 402” (Col 8 line 52- Col 9 line 2, and Fig. 7 of Aubert)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Zhou, and Li that capturing biometric information of a user such as iris image of the user and generating a code based on the captured image, in view of Aubert to include techniques of prior to transmitting the code: a message from the computing system is received at the computing device operated by the first user, wherein the message indicates that the image of the iris of the first user is to be captured, wherein the message is presented to the first user on the display of the computing device; and a response is caused to be transmitted from the computing device to the computer system, wherein the response indicates that the first user has acknowledged the message. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to acknowledge some instructions regarding how to cooperate with the biometric capturing device for capturing the biometric information of the user.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20190325407), in view of Li (CN 104320414 A), further in view of Tomlinson (US 20180331833).
Regarding claim(s) 6, 13, 19, Zhou does not disclose, but Tomlinson teaches:
wherein the code is a hash of pixel values of the image of the iris of the first user. (By disclosing, “The authentication module 5-2 uses the cryptographic hash calculator 63 to calculate a first hash value 67 from the defined portion or whole of the 2D code 17, such as the extracted pixel values representing the low-resolution image 37′ as discussed above with reference to the corresponding code generator 21. The specific image resolution of the low-resolution image 37′ of the user's face may determine the number of pixel values that are input to the cryptographic hash calculator 63.” ([0042], [0023] of Tomlinson)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Zhou, and Li, in view of Tomlinson to include techniques of wherein the code is a hash of pixel values of the image of the iris of the first user. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the code to represent a unique “fingerprint” identifier to the image, thus improving the accuracy of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180232739 to Battle for disclosing:
Sensor data may be captured by at least one sensor in communication with at least one processor. The at least one processor may extract biometric data from the sensor data and compare the biometric data with stored biometric data for a first user stored in a memory in communication with the at least one processor. The at least one processor may determine that the biometric data matches the stored biometric data based on the comparing. The at least one processor may execute a transaction between the first user and a second user, the transaction comprising an exchange of digital currency between the users. The at least one processor may create a block in a distributed blockchain, the block comprising data memorializing the at least one transaction including information describing the exchange of the digital currency and at least one of the biometric data and the stored biometric data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699