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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 6/30/2026. Amendments received on 6/30/2026 have been entered. As per applicant claims 1 and 4 have been canceled. Claim 21 is newly added claims. Accordingly claims 2-3 and 5-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 17. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 3, 6-8, 10-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloepfer et al. (US Pub 2018/0142977) in view of Krueger et al. (US 11,138,409) in view of Rachlin (US Pub 2010/0066493).
As of claim 3, Kloepfer discloses a method of storing enrollment data on a gun, the method comprising:
obtaining, at a fingerprint sensor of the gun, biometric enrollment data from a user of the gun and storing the biometric enrollment data in non-volatile memory of the gun (via obtaining, at fingerprint sensor 122, biometric enrollment data and storing the biometric enrollment data in a secure memory 110; see fig. 1; also see paragraphs [0049] and [0096]).
However, Kloepfer does not explicitly disclose preprocessing the biometric enrollment data, wherein the preprocessing includes extracting a set of features from the biometric enrollment data, wherein the set of features includes fingerprint ridge characteristics that are unique to the user.
Krueger discloses a biometric system comprising the step of, obtaining at a fingerprint sensor 12, fingerprint from a user and extracting a set of features from the biometric enrollment data, wherein the set of features includes fingerprint ridge characteristics that are unique to the user (see fig. 2; also see col. 10, lines 12-35). Krueger further discloses that it is known to perform non-invertible spatial transform on the extracted features to protect the template (see col. 2, lines 46-50).
To further support that is known to transform enrollment data Rachlin discloses the technique of generating transformed biometric enrollment data by transforming the biometric enrollment data according to a one-way function so as to produce the transformed biometric enrollment data (see paragraph [0004]).
From the teaching of Rachlin it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Kloepfer to include the function of transforming enrollment data according to a one-way function as taught by Rachlin in order to protect the original biometric data.
As of claim 16, Kloepfer, Krueger, Rachlin discloses all the limitations of the claimed inventio as mentioned in claim 3 above, namely performing the function of enrollments, Kloepfer further discloses the step determining authorization as claimed in the last limitation of claim 16 (see abstract).
As of claim 6, Kloepfer discloses preprocessing the biometric enrollment data by detecting an object in the biometric enrollment data and segmenting the object, wherein the set of features is extracted from within the object (via disclosing that each data point of the vector indicates a particular location associated with a surface of the fingerprint sensor and each value of the vector may indicate an intensity (e.g., a lightness or darkness detected in the location). In another example, the matrix of data points may be data associated with a captured image of a fingerprint having a plurality of pixels associated with a particular location of the surface of the fingerprint sensor; see paragraph [0082]).
Krueger further discloses that the one or more scanned fingerprint images 30 may be processed prior to feature detection and extraction to reduce noise, variations in contrast and/or compression artifacts within the one or more images including, but not limited to, quantization, compression, random electrical noise, variations in brightness across surfaces of the biometric sensor 12 (see col. 9, lines 39-46).
As of claim 7, Krueger discloses that the ridge characteristics include ridge bifurcations and ridge endings (see col. 2, lines 10-15).
As of claim 8, Kloepfer discloses storing the biometric enrollment data in volatile memory of the gun (via storing in volatile memory; see paragraph [0096]).
As of claims 10 and 20, Kloepfer discloses that an additional biometric sensor could be used to verify user identity that could be integrated in as a secondary fail-safe or an alternative method to activate the gun (see paragraph [0058]) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform the steps of obtaining, transforming and storing the data of the additional biometric sensor in the same manner as done with the first biometric sensor as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Rachlin further discloses that the input device 302 is a camera for capturing a image of a person’s face (see paragraph [0026]).
As of claim 11, Kloepfer discloses that the biometric enrollment data is a first type of biometric data (fingerprint) and the additional biometric enrollment data is a second type of biometric data that is different from the first type of biometric data (via retinal, iris or voice; see paragraph [0058]).
As of claim 12, Kloepfer discloses that the biometric enrollment data is fingerprint data (see paragraph [0058]). Rachlin further disclose that the additional biometric enrollment data is facial data (via disclosing that the biometric data is fingerprint or facial image; see paragraph [0048]).
As of claim 13, Rachlin discloses the steps of obtaining, at the biometric sensor of the gun, biometric query data from the user of the gun (via obtaining biometric data at authentication phase; see paragraph [0048]); generating transformed biometric query data by transforming the biometric query data according to the one-way function so as to produce the transformed biometric query data (via generating transformed biometric data; see paragraph [0048]); and identifying a data match based on the transformed biometric query data and the transformed biometric enrollment data satisfying a similarity threshold (via comparing the transformed biometric data during authentication phase to transformed biometric data of the enrollment phase; see fig. 10; also see paragraph [0051]) .
As of claim 14, Rachlin discloses authenticating the user as an authorized user in response to identifying the data match (via authenticating the user; see paragraph [0011]).
As of claims 15 and 18, Kloepfer discloses unlocking the gun in response to the identifying the data match (via unlocking the gun; see abstract).
Claims 2, 5, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloepfer, Krueger, Rachlin and Verbauwhede et al. (US Pub 2007/0038867).
As of claims 2, 5, 17 and 21, Kloepfer discloses that the step of determining ridges and valleys of the fingerprints and generating template that uniquely represents the fingerprint of the user and it is well known in the art that binarizing the fingerprint image converts real-valued, high resolution data into a compact binary representation, which speeds up matching and reduces the storage capacity needed for template in the database; see paragraph [0033]-[0034]). With regards to limitations of obtaining parameters that include a set of vectors and producing transformed biometric enrollment data based on the parameters of claim 2, Krueger discloses that the step of using feature vectors to transform fingerprint data wherien the transformed representation sis computationally irreversible (see col. 13, lines 44-56).
With regards to the limitation of binarizing the biometric enrollment data to produce binarized biometric enrollment data, wherein the set of features is extracted from the binarized biometric enrollment data, Verbauwhede discloses that there are several steps in the minutiae extraction algorithm, many of which require significant signal processing. The first step is to generate image quality maps, which include the detection of fingerprint ridge directions, image refinement, and detection of low contrast areas, which are assigned lower quality factors. A binarization of the image is generated, and the detection algorithm scans this binary image of the fingerprint to identify localized pixel patterns that indicate the ending (ridge) or splitting of a ridge (bifurcation; see paragraph [0109]).
From the teaching of Verbauwhede it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the function of binarization in order to converts real-valued, high-resolution data into a compact binary representation.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloepfer, Krueger, Rachlin and further in view of Lee (US Pub 2021/0377013).
As of claims 9 and 19, combination of Kloepfer, Krueger and Rachlin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 3 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the steps of storing the biometric enrollment data in volatile memory and discarding the biometric enrollment data by writing data to the volatile memory.
Lee discloses a method for registering biometric data comprising the steps of, obtaining the biometric data, storing the biometric data in a volatile memory and once the biometric data is transformed and stored in volatile memory, deleting the obtained biometric data (see fig. 4; also see paragraphs [0003] and [0014]- [0015]).
From the teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Kloepfer, Krueger and Rachlin to include the function of discarding the original biometric data as taught by Lee to enhance security of the system to avert or refrain from attacks or theft.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2-3 and 5-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,514,735 in view of Krueger et al. (US 11,138,409). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Present Application (18/972408) Claim 3:
A method of storing enrollment data on a gun, the method comprising: obtaining, at a fingerprint sensor of the gun, biometric enrollment data from a user of the gun; preprocessing the biometric enrollment data, wherein the preprocessing includes: extracting a set of features from the biometric enrollment data, wherein the set of features includes fingerprint ridge characteristics that are unique to the user; generating transformed biometric enrollment data by transforming the set of features, according to a one-way function, so as to produce the transformed biometric enrollment data; and storing the transformed biometric enrollment data in non-volatile memory of the gun.
Conflicting Patent (11,514,735) Claim 15:
A method for enrolling user biometrics at a gun, the method comprising: collecting biometric enrollment data at a biometric sensor of the gun; generating a set of enrollment features from the biometric enrollment data, each enrollment feature of the set of enrollment features including a first number of dimensions; generating a projection matrix, each element of the projection matrix being drawn independently from an identical distribution having zero mean and unit variance; transforming the set of enrollment features into a transformed set of enrollment features based on the projection matrix, the transformed set of enrollment features having the same number of enrollment features as the set of enrollment features, each enrollment feature of the transformed set of enrollment features including a second number of dimensions that is smaller than the first number of dimensions, wherein a relative distance between enrollment features in the set of enrollment features is approximately the same as a relative distance between the enrollment features in the transformed set of enrollment features; storing the transformed set of enrollment features in non-volatile memory of the gun; and discarding the set of enrollment features such that the set of enrollment features are irrecoverable.
Comments
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, expect the limitation of extracting a set of features from the biometric enrollment data, wherein the set of features includes fingerprint ridge characteristics that are unique to the user. Krueger discloses said limitation as disclosed in the art rejection above.
Present Application 18/972408
Conflicting Patent (11,514,735)
2
15 in view of Verbauwhede as disclosed in the art rejection above.
5-8
15
9
16
10-12
15
13-15
1
16-21
15
Claims 2-3 and 5-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,511 in view of Krueger et al. (US 11,138,409) in the same manner as rejected above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Streit (US Pub 2020/0044852) discloses a system and methods for privacy enabled biometric processing wherien original biometric data is discarded after transformation via a one-way function (see abstract).
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. 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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights