CTNF 18/988,420 CTNF 84551 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. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim numbering “12” is not punctuated by a period . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 17 and 18 improperly refer to apparatus claim 11 as a method claim. 37 CFR 1.75(c) requires that a dependent claim must further limit a preceding claim in the same application . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 14-16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: MPEP 608.01(m) states "the wording of the claim should be reasonably free from...unnecessary punctuation” and CFR 1.75 states claims must be a single sentence. The presence of dashes (“-”) creates ambiguity regarding interpretation applied to limitations and claims as a whole . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 17 and 18 reference “[t]he method of claim 11”. However, claim 11 is an apparatus claim. The change in statutory classes between independent claim 11 and dependent claims 17 and 18 creates ambiguity regarding bounds of claim coverage. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant disclosed Magi Shaashua USP 9355234 (hereinafter Magi), in view of Mannby US 20210064726 . For claims 1, 11 and 19, Magi discloses: An apparatus (104), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (col 6, ll 35-37), cause the apparatus at least to: A- determine (S3) a plurality of candidate processes for the multi-factor user authentication (col 9, ll 48-52 and 61-65, col 10, ll 60-64, and col 11, ll 9-13: a plurality of “suitable” biometric methods is employed to authenticate a user), B- for one or more of the plurality candidate processes, determine (S4) one or more performance scores respectively to quantify one or more properties that characterize how the method performs in executing said candidate process (col 8, ll 15-19: “suitability” score generated for each available biometric method); C- determine (S5) a plurality of sets of the one or more candidate processes, wherein a specific set is adapted to execute one or more authentication requests (col 5, ll 62 – col 6, ll 3 & col 8, ll 60-64: Biometric methods are selected based on device factors (available sensors), environmental factors that affect biometric sensors’ suitability, and biometric method strength); D- select (S6) one specific set among the plurality of sets based on the one or more performance scores, according to a selection rule that is based on a performance goal for the method (col 6, ll 3-6: authentication server rules out/eliminates unsuitable biometric methods that would not work, be ineffective, or provide poor results); and E- execute the one or more authentication requests by performing the selected set (col 8, ll 34-41: Server authenticates user with biometric methods that satisfy selection criteria). While Magi discloses fails to explicitly discloses a plurality of “suitable” biometric methods employed to authenticate a user (col 9, ll 48-52 and 61-65, col 10, ll 60-64, and col 11, ll 9-13), it fails to disclose “wherein a candidate process uses at least two authentication factors provided by one or more wearable devices ” (emphasis added). However, in a related field, Mannby discloses methods wherein a wearable device (smart watch, augmented reality headset) employs multiple authentication types (face scanner, iris canner, fingerprint scanner, voice recording) to verify user identity (par. 0070 & 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant application to have introduced Mannby’s teaching alongside Magi. The motivation to combine would have been to confirm user intention to complete an authentication by assessing multiple forms of biometric authentication data acquired from wearable device (Mannby, par. 0040, 0042, 0043, 0070) For claims 2 and 12, Magi-Mannby discloses: The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising, for the one or more authentication requests: determine (S2) at least one requirement of the authentication request; and in the step C- (S5), filter (S51) the plurality of candidate processes to obtain a subset of the plurality of candidate processes satisfying the at least one requirement of the authentication request (Magi, col. 7, ll 11-14: “The device factors identify the capabilities of the smart device 22 of the user 30 and thus which of the various available biometric methods provisioned in the authentication server 24 can be applied to authenticate the user 30 of the smart device 22.”). For claims 3 and 13, Magi-Mannby discloses: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein, if a plurality of authentication requests are received, the step C- (S5) further comprises; combine (S52) a plurality of candidate processes respectively extracted from the plurality of subsets of the plurality of candidate processes obtained for the plurality of authentication requests (Magi, col 6, ll 29-33). For claims 4 and 14, Magi-Mannby discloses: The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the determining (S2) of the at least one requirement of the authentication request further comprises: determine at least one requirement of a group comprising at least one of: - one or more wearable devices to be used to perform authentication; - one or more authentication factors to be used to perform authentication; - an information on authentication frequency; or - an information on authentication accuracy (Magi, col 8, ll 41-45: predefined tolerances, e.g., 3%, 5% accuracy disclosed). For claims 5 and 15, Magi-Mannby discloses: The apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the one or more properties quantified by the one or more performance scores comprise at least one of: - an authentication accuracy; - an authentication speed; - a network usage to perform authentication; - an energy efficiency of authentication; - an energy balance between wearable devices to perform authentication; or - a device wearing time (Magi, col 7, ll 57-58: biometric method strength factors provide weights identifying accuracy of each available biometric method). For claims 6 and 16, Magi-Mannby discloses: The apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the selection rule comprises at least one of: - prioritization of accuracy of authentication; - prioritization of speed of authentication; - prioritization of low network usage of authentication; - prioritization of energy efficiency of authentication; - prioritization of energy balance of authentication between the wearable devices; or - prioritization of authentication with devices that are expected to be worn longer (Magi, col 7, ll 60-62: Biometric method accuracy weighting) For claims 7 and 17, Magi-Mannby discloses: The method according to claim 11, further comprising: select the selection rule among a plurality of predetermined selection rules (Magi, col 11, ll 4-7: Biometric methods selected based on policy) For claims 8 and 18, Magi-Mannby discloses: The method according to claim 17, wherein the selection rule is selected based on one or more monitored conditions or states of the method (Magi, col 5, ll 64-col 6, ll 3: Biometric methods selected based on device factors such as capabilities available on smart device of user and environmental factors affecting suitably of authentication methods). For claim 9, Magi-Mannby discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the steps A to E are carried out by a master device (Magi, Fig 1 & col 5, ll 51-56: Authentication server 24 disclosed For claim 10, Magi-Mannby discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein at least part of the steps A to E are executed if there is a change in at least one or more of: the one or more authentication requests, the wearable devices or the selection rule (Magi, col 5, ll 64-col 6, ll 3 & col 7, ll 42-47: Biometric method selection based on “environmental” factors such as detected lighting/brightness; ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm. 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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. /CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/988,420 Page 2 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/988,420 Page 3 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/988,420 Page 4 Art Unit: 2443
Prosecution Insights