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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
Claim 31 recites ‘capture image data’. It is unclear if this ‘image data’ is the same or different from the previously recited ‘image data’ in claim 30 from which claim 31 depends.
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 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 29 recites "a memory storage device”. A memorandum from Director Kappos was issued January 26, 2010 entitled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media" hereinafter "Kappos 1/26/2010". According to "Kappos 1/26/2010", in the absence of a definition in the specification explicitly excluding transitory propagating/transmission type memory medium, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a computer readable medium" is interpreted to include both "non-transitory tangible media" and "transitory propagating signals" medium where the latter renders the claim non-statutory. "Kappos 1/26/2010" directs the patent community to overcome 101 rejections of this nature by amending the claim language to add the limitation "non- transitory" to the claim, for example "processor readable non-transitory media".
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.
Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller et al. (US Pub. 20230379564 A1) and further in view of Bansal et al. (US Pub. 20210374689 A1).
Regarding claim 21 (New), Haller discloses a method for protecting data using multi-location authentication, the method comprising:
acquiring first image data from a first section of a body surface of a user at a first time, wherein the first image data represents a first unique biometric feature (Fig. 7, para. 99);
acquiring second image data from a second section of a body surface of the user at the first time, wherein the second image data represents a second unique biometric feature (Fig. 7, para. 99);
generating, based on a combination of the first image data and the second image data, (para. 91-92);
acquiring subsequent first image data from the first section of the body surface at a second time later than the first time (para. 38);
acquiring subsequent second image data from the second section of the body surface at the second time (para. 38);
executing an image engine configured to determine whether the subsequent first image data matches the first image data and whether the subsequent second image data matches the second image data, wherein the image engine is trained to create a confidence level for matching; and in response to the confidence level indicating both the subsequent first image data and the subsequent second image data match within a predetermined threshold (para. 38- algorithm comparing to the registered/baseline biometrics to match sufficiently good).,
Haller does not specifically teach generating a key associated with first and second unique biometric features, encrypting a data file using the key and unlocking the encrypted file after sufficient image data matching. However, in the related art of biometric authentication using a plurality of biometric features, Bansal teaches generating a key associated with first and second unique biometric features, encrypting a data file using the key and unlocking the encrypted file after sufficient image data matching. (see paras. 25, 41-42, 45-46). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Bansal with the disclosure of Haller as a known way of using authenticating biometric features to protect sensitive transaction information from hackers and fraudsters as suggested by Bansal (see para. 79)
Regarding claim 22 (New), Haller discloses in the method of claim 21, wherein the first section of the body surface and the second section of the body surface are different body locations. (Fig. 7, para. 99)
Regarding claim 23 (New), Haller discloses in the method of claim 21, wherein the first unique biometric feature and the second unique biometric feature each comprise at least one of wrinkles, hair count per area, vascular patterns, skin irregularities, and skin creases.(para. 89)
Regarding claim 24 (New), Haller discloses in the method of claim 21, wherein acquiring the first image data and the second image data comprises capturing three-dimensional image data extending microns to millimeters into the respective sections of the body surface. (para. 6, 114)
Regarding claim 25 (New), Haller disclose in the method of claim 21, wherein acquiring the first image data and the second image data comprises capturing image data using at least one of infrared light, ultraviolet light, LiDAR, ultrasound, and varying light patterns.(para. 66)
Regarding claim 27 (New), the combination of Haller and Bansal discloses in the method of claim 21, wherein the first section of the body surface and the second section of the body surface are moved to different locations between the first time and the second time. (Haller- para. 127-128; Bansal- paras. 40-41- authentication factors at different time intervals and different angles)
Regarding claim 28 (New), Bansal discloses in the method of claim 21, wherein unlocking the encrypted data file comprises at least one of unlocking a smartphone, unlocking a computing device, decrypting the encrypted data file, unlocking a vehicle, and authorizing a transaction. (para. 80-81)
Claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Haller and Bansal and further in view of Mahmood (US Pub. 20220391487 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 33, while Bansal does disclose updating biometric features over time which involved changes (see para. 26), it does not specifically teach wherein the image engine executes artificial intelligence to predict changes in the first and second unique biometric features over time; or convolutional neural network trained to compensate for changes in the unique biometric features due to aging. However, in the related art of biometric authentication, Mahmood discloses wherein the image engine executes artificial intelligence to predict changes in the first and second unique biometric features over time; or convolutional neural network trained to compensate for changes in the unique biometric features due to aging. (see para. 17). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Mahmood with the disclosure of Mahmood as a known way to strengthen security by adjusting to legitimate users' evolving traits without compromising identity verification.
Regarding claims 29-34, they are rejected as applied to claims 21, 23-27 because a corresponding system would have been necessitated to carry forth the method steps of claim 21, 23-27. The applied prior art also discloses the corresponding architecture.
Regarding claim 35 (New), Haller discloses in the system of claim 29, wherein the processor-executable instructions further configure the processor to apply stress to at least one of the first section and the second section and generate the key based on a response of the unique biometric features to the applied stress. (para. 41, 53, 69, 86- flexible illumination, different lighting configurations)
Regarding claim 36 (New), Haller discloses in the system of claim 35, wherein the applied stress comprises at least one of thermal stress, electrical stress, compression stress, and light pattern variations. (paras. 72, 114, 117- sequences of LEDs lights)
Regarding claim 37 (New), Haller discloses in the system of claim 29, wherein the processor-executable instructions further configure the processor to execute multi-factor authentication by requiring authentication of both the first section and the second section before unlocking the encrypted data file. (para. 99)
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagelberg et al. (US Pat. 10,454,677 B1) and further in view of Bansal et al. (US Pub. 20210374689 A1)
Regarding claim 38 (New), Nagelberg discloses a method for protecting data comprising: acquiring an image of a body surface of a user (col. 4, lines 11-34); storing the image in a memory (col. 4, line 58- col. 5, line 3); generating a first encryption key based on a first portion of the image of the body surface (col. 5, lines 20-30); generating a second encryption key based on a second portion of the image of the body surface, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion (col. 7, lines 10-28); (col. 9, lines 35-50); and changing or selecting between the first encryption key and the second encryption key to enhance security. (col. 7, lines 10-28)
Nagelberg does not specifically teach encrypting a data file using one of the encryption keys. However, in the related art of biometric authentication using a plurality of biometric features/portions, Bansal teaches generating a key associated with first and second unique biometric features and encrypting a data file using the key and unlocking the encrypted file after sufficient image data matching. (see paras. 25, 41-42). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Bansal with the disclosure of Nagelberg as a known way to protect sensitive transaction information.
Regarding claim 39, Bansal discloses in the method set forth in claim 38, wherein the data file is configured for at least one of unlocking a smartphone, unlocking a computing device, unlocking a vehicle, or authorizing a transaction. (para. 45-46)
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagelberg and Bansal and further in view of Mahmood.
Regarding claim 40 (New), while Bansal does disclose updating biometric features over time which involved changes (see para. 26), it does not specifically teach executing an image engine to predict changes in the first portion and the second portion over time. However, in the related art of biometric authentication, Mahmood discloses executing an image engine to predict changes in the first portion and the second portion over time. (see para. 17). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Mahmood with the disclosure of Mahmood as a known way to strengthen security by adjusting to legitimate users' evolving traits without compromising identity verification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CORUM JR whose telephone number is (303)297-4234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
WILLIAM A. CORUM JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2433
william.corum2@uspto.gov
/WILLIAM A CORUM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights