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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 27 November 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Claims 17 and 18 are examples of omnibus type claims. For the purposes of examination, these claims will be considered to recite similar language to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 19-20 inherit this deficiency.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition or matter?
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 encompass a transitory medium given the claim's broadest reasonable interpretation in light of paragraph [0078] of the specification. Such media have been held to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is suggested that claim 17 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium to overcome this rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-20 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-7 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 8-16 fall within the category of a process. Claim 17, if amended to recite “non-transitory,” falls within the category of a manufacture. Claims 18-20 fall within the category of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
obtain biometric data related to a specific human to be identified;
store this biometric data over a time period;
identify patterns in this biometric data; and
compare newly presented biometric data to these patterns to perform identification.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “biometric identification” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Biometric identification” is considered to be a mental process because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient, via the patient’s biometric data.
Further, the claims can also be considered to recite a mental process, because they include concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
processing circuitry; and
one or more memory devices including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the processing circuitry to: [perform the abstract idea].
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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(s), individually and in combination, merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the system is used to identify a human patient in a hospital setting.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the system is used to determine that a human patient has been incorrectly identified by an identification mechanism.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the system is used to identify a user of a computing device.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the system is used to identify a user of a mobile communications device.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the system includes the use of a gradient descent expert system training mechanism.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 6 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 6, wherein:
a training mechanism;
a rule-fact network;
a training biometric data input mechanism;
a presentation biometric data input mechanism;
an identification processing mechanism;
an identification output mechanism;
the use of the training mechanism to update the rule-fact network based on data provided by the training biometric data input mechanism;
the use of the identification processing mechanism to make an identification determination based on the rule-fact network; and
providing identification information to a system user via the identification output mechanism.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claims 8 and 11-16 are parallel in nature to claims 1-7. Accordingly claims 8 and 11-16 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 9 recites the method of claim 8, wherein:
the identification is made via a comparison of the patterns in the biometric data to the patterns of one or more patients.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 8 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the method of claim 9, wherein:
the identification includes the use of at least one of: similarity threshold, difference level comparison, and rule-fact network output comparison.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 9 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 10 is considered to be ineligible.
Claim 17 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Accordingly claim 17 is rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claims 18-20 are parallel in nature to claims 1, 3, and 5. Accordingly claims 18-20 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (U.S. 2017/0188971), hereinafter “Liu.”
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a system for human identification, the system comprising:
processing circuitry (See Liu [0121] the system includes a processor, memory and a display.); and
one or more memory devices including instructions (See Liu [0121] the system includes a processor, memory and a display.), which when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the processing circuitry to:
obtain biometric data related to a specific human to be identified (See Liu [0054] the system acquires an ECG signal (i.e. “biometric data”).) ;
store this biometric data over a time period (See Liu [0057] the system collects and stores the signal for a predefined time interval measured before and after the peak point.);
identify patterns in this biometric data (See Liu [0059] the system extracts a semantic feature (i.e. “patterns”) from the received ECG signal.); and
compare newly presented biometric data to these patterns to perform identification (See Liu [0051] extracts a feature of an ECG signal acquired using a neural network model and determines whether to authenticate based on the extracted feature. [0061] the system calculates a similarity between the semantic feature and a predefined registered feature or a reference feature corresponding to a target to be compared with the semantic feature. See also [0005].).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a system, where:
the system is used to identify a human patient in a hospital setting (See Liu [0048] ECG authentication is applicable to health care service settings.)(Further, examiner notes that this claim language is considered to be intended use language, and is not given patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a system, where:
the system is used to determine that a human patient has been incorrectly identified by an identification mechanism (See Liu [0051] determines that an authentication succeeds when the similarity is greater than or equal to a threshold, and determines that the authentication fails when the similarity is less than the threshold.)(Further, examiner notes that this claim language is considered to be intended use language, and is not given patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a system, where:
the system is used to identify a user of a computing device (See Liu [0049] the system can be used in connection with various digital devices such as, for example, a mobile phone, a cellular phone, a smart phone, a personal computer (PC), a laptop, a notebook.)(Further, examiner notes that this claim language is considered to be intended use language, and is not given patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a system, where:
the system is used to identify a user of a mobile communications device (See Liu [0049] the system can be used in connection with various digital devices such as, for example, a mobile phone, a cellular phone, a smart phone, a personal computer (PC), a laptop, a notebook.)(Further, examiner notes that this claim language is considered to be intended use language, and is not given patentable weight.).
Regarding claims 8 and 12-15, Liu discloses the system of claims 1-5 as discussed above. Claims 8 and 12-15 recite a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claims 1-5. Accordingly, claims 8 and 12-15 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the method of claim 8 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a method, where:
the identification is made via a comparison of the patterns in the biometric data to the patterns of one or more patients (See Liu [0061] the system calculates a similarity between the semantic feature and a predefined registered feature or a reference feature corresponding to a target to be compared with the semantic feature. The system determines that the authentication succeeds when the cosine similarity is greater than or equal to the threshold and determines that the authentication fails when the cosine similarity is less than the threshold. [0048] ECG authentication is applicable to health care service settings.).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses the method of claim 9 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a method, where:
the identification includes the use of at least one of: similarity threshold, difference level comparison, and rule-fact network output comparison (See Liu [0061] the system calculates a similarity between the semantic feature and a predefined registered feature or a reference feature corresponding to a target to be compared with the semantic feature. The system determines that the authentication succeeds when the cosine similarity is greater than or equal to the threshold and determines that the authentication fails when the cosine similarity is less than the threshold.).
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 17 recites at least one machine-readable medium including instructions to perform a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claims 18-20, Liu discloses the system of claims 1, 3, and 5 as discussed above. Claims 18-20 recite an apparatus that performs a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claims 1, 3, and 5. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are rejected based on the same analysis.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 6-7, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. 2017/0188971), hereinafter “Liu,” in view of Straub, “Gradient Descent Training Expert System,” Software Impacts, Volume 10, 2021, hereinafter “Straub.”
Regarding Claim 6, Liu discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a system, where:
the system includes the use of a gradient descent … training mechanism (See Liu [0090] the system corrects a weight of each layer included in the candidate neural network model using an error gradient descent method based on a difference between the actual output and the expected output of the candidate neural network model.).
Liu does not disclose:
the system includes the use of a gradient descent expert system training mechanism.
Straub teaches:
the system includes the use of a gradient descent expert system training mechanism (See Straub Abstract; the system can use a gradient descent training expert system, a machine learning training method, gradient descent, in a manner similar to a neural network; however, instead of a multi-layer network of densely connected nodes, it uses a known-meaning rule-fact network.).
The system of Straub is applicable to the disclosure of Liu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to machine learning optimization using gradient descent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include rule-fact system optimization as taught by Straub. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Liu in order to provide the explainability of an expert system with the optimization of a neural network (see Straub Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Straub discloses the system of claim 6 as discussed above. Liu further discloses a system, where:
a training mechanism (See Liu [0051] Parameters of the neural network model are adjusted through the training process. [0063] the system includes the use of a training device that trains a neural network model to be used by the ECG authentication apparatus based on ECG training data.);
a [machine learning] network (See Liu [0063] When the neural network model is appropriately trained based on various ECG training data, the trained neural network model may extract a feature having an accurate identification skill from the ECG signal.);
a training biometric data input mechanism (See Liu [0063] the training device receives the ECG training data.);
a presentation biometric data input mechanism (See Liu [0054] the system can acquire an ECG signal (i.e. “biometric data”).) ;
an identification processing mechanism (See Liu [0051] extracts a feature of an ECG signal acquired using a neural network model and determines whether to authenticate based on the extracted feature. [0061] the system calculates a similarity between the semantic feature and a predefined registered feature or a reference feature corresponding to a target to be compared with the semantic feature. See also [0005].);
an identification output mechanism (See Liu [0121] the system includes a processor, memory and a display.);
the use of the training mechanism to update the [machine learning] network based on data provided by the training biometric data input mechanism (See Liu [0051] Parameters of the neural network model are adjusted through the training process. [0063] the system includes the use of a training device that trains a neural network model to be used by the ECG authentication apparatus based on ECG training data.);
the use of the identification processing mechanism to make an identification determination based on the [machine learning] network (See Liu [0051] extracts a feature of an ECG signal acquired using a neural network model and determines whether to authenticate based on the extracted feature. [0061] the system calculates a similarity between the semantic feature and a predefined registered feature or a reference feature corresponding to a target to be compared with the semantic feature. See also [0005].); and
providing identification information to a system user via the identification output mechanism (See Liu [0025] system can display the results of the authentication.).
Liu does not disclose:
[the machine learning network is] a rule-fact network.
Straub teaches:
[the machine learning network is] a rule-fact network (See Straub Abstract; the system can use a gradient descent training expert system, a machine learning training method, gradient descent, in a manner similar to a neural network; however, instead of a multi-layer network of densely connected nodes, it uses a known-meaning rule-fact network.).
The system of Straub is applicable to the disclosure of Liu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to machine learning optimization using gradient descent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include rule-fact system optimization as taught by Straub. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Liu in order to provide the explainability of an expert system with the optimization of a neural network (see Straub Abstract).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Liu discloses the system of claims 6-7 as discussed above. Claims 11 and 16 recite a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claims 6-7. Accordingly, claims 11 and 16 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aimone et al. (U.S. 2020/0337625) teaches a system and method for brain modeling that can be used in biometric identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684