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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 6/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argue that Shear does not disclose an authentication rule that specifies both liveness criteria and authentication criteria where the authentication criteria specifies operation parameters that govern user interaction with one or more biometric sensors”. The examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0178 of Shear describes the idea of variable authentication rules where based upon the particular situation, the authentication rules include different requirements, such liveness requirements, contextual requirements, biometric requirements etc. Paragraphs 0279-0280 of Shear describe an example authentication rule which requires a user to speak particular words and this provides for a liveness requirement (i.e. the user must interact with the system by speaking particular words) and provides for authentication requirements (i.e. verification of vocal properties of the speaker). Paragraph 0239 of Shear disclosed that existential authentication of an individual may include using challenge response techniques that may require the individual's cooperation. For example, authentication processing may request an individual to blink a specified random number of times, hold up the individual's hands, point their forefinger to the right, and/or read a word or phrase out loud, and/or the like. This, clearly, governs a user’s interaction with one or more biometric sensors. The examiner believes that this meets the applicants’ contested limitation, and as such the examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Note that the claimed “liveness criteria” can simply be that liveness detection is required.
The applicants further argue that Shear does not disclose “responsive to the user interaction being in accordance with the operation parameters, providing…biometric data…for authentication”. The examiner disagrees. According to Shear, in light of Fig. 5, the user interacts with the sensors according to instructions, the biometrics are captured by the sensors and provided to the input processing, which then provides the biometrics for authentication (e.g. processing and matching against stored biometrics and contextual information. The examiner believes that this meets the claim limitation and as such does not find the argument persuasive.
Note that the claimed “operation parameters” simply require “govern[ing] user interaction with one or more biometric sensors”. Thus, the “operation parameters” can be as simple as “user must provide biometric input” or “user must be present in front of a camera” or “user must be within capture range of a microphone”, all of which can be implicit rather than an explicit setting. For example, if the authentication rule requires liveness and voice matching, where the user is instructed to speak a particular phrase, there are many implied and required operation parameters, such as the user is required to interact with a microphone, user must be within capture range of the microphone, etc. Further, instructing the user to speak a particular phrase also meets the limitation of “operation parameters”. In another example, if the system is requiring a fingerprint match, then there are required “operation parameters” of the user interacting with a fingerprint scanner. The claims do not require that the operation parameters are stored in a database, or in a rulebook, etc.
Furthermore, the computer code itself that instructs the computer to capture audio, fingerprints, video, etc. meets the operation parameters. So if the system determines that the user must speak a particular phrase into the microphone, the system must have coded instructions that enable the microphone to capture the users spoken response to the instructions directing the user to speak the phrase.
The examiner notes that the claims do not require a determination of whether or not the user interaction is in accordance with the operation parameters (i.e. did the user speak the correct words? or did the user interact with the correct sensor? etc.). Further the claims don’t state that the providing step only occurs responsive to such a determination. In other words, if the system performs the providing step in the case when the user interaction is in accordance with the operation parameters, and also when the user interaction is not in accordance with the operation parameters (i.e. in all cases where the user has interacted with the sensor but not necessarily correctly) then when the user has the user has interacted correctly then the providing step falls within the scope of “responsive to the user interaction being in accordance with the operation parameters”.
Because the examiner does not find the applicants’ arguments persuasive, the examiner has maintained the rejections presented below.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The examiner notes that the applicants have included in the filing at least one foreign reference that was not cited on the IDS.
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.
Claims 11-15 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.
Claim 11 presents limitations “one or more processors configured to determine an authentication…”, “one or more processors configured to determine satisfaction…”, “one or more processors configured to determine user interaction…”, and “one or more processors configured to provide biometric data” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While the specification provides descriptions of many different things that the processors may be, the specification does not appear to clearly link any specific structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shear et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0033305) hereinafter referred to as Shear.
Regarding claim 1, Shear disclosed a method of processing biometric data, the method comprising:
determining, by a control system, an authentication rule to authenticate a user of a device, wherein the authentication rule specifies both liveness criteria and authentication criteria, the authentication criteria specifying operation parameters that govern user interaction with one or more biometric sensors (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example);
determining, by the control system, satisfaction of the liveness criteria based on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the device (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example);
determining, by the control system, user interaction with the one or more biometric sensors of the device in accordance with the operation parameters (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example); and
responsive to the user interaction being in accordance with the operation parameters, providing, by the control system, biometric data obtained from the one or more biometric sensors for authentication (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example).
Regarding claim 2, Shear disclosed that determining satisfaction of the liveness criteria based on sensor data captured by the one or more sensors of the device includes detecting a touch gesture, hand gesture, squeeze gesture, voice, face, blood pressure (BP), button activation, or combinations thereof (Shear Paragraph 0282 for example).
Regarding claim 3, Shear disclosed providing, by the control system, user instructions requesting the biometric data based at least in part on the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0239, 0254-0259 and 500 for example – and Paragraphs 0279-0280).
Regarding claim 5, Shear disclosed that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria require user authentication using a first fingerprint sensor of the device, a second fingerprint sensor of the device, a third fingerprint sensor of the device, an iris sensor, or combinations thereof (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0239, 0254-0259 and 500 for example).
Regarding claim 11, Shear disclosed an apparatus, comprising:
a control system comprising one or more processors configured to:
determine an authentication rule to authenticate a user of the apparatus, wherein the authentication rule specifies both liveness criteria and authentication criteria, the authentication criteria specifying operation parameters that govern user interaction with one or more biometric sensors (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example);
determine satisfaction of the liveness criteria based on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the apparatus (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example);
determine user interaction with the one or more biometric sensors of the apparatus in accordance with the operation parameters (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example); and
responsive to the user interaction being in accordance with the operation parameters, provide biometric data obtained from the one or more biometric sensors for authentication (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example).
Regarding claim 12, Shear disclosed that the control system is configure tot determine satisfaction of the liveness criteria based on sensor data captured by the one or more sensors of the apparatus by detecting a touch gesture, hand gesture, squeeze gesture, voice, face, blood pressure (BP), button activation, or combinations thereof (Shear Paragraph 0282 for example).
Regarding claim 13, Shear disclosed that the control system is configured to: provide user instructions requesting the biometric data based at least in part on the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0239, 0254-0259 and 500 for example – and Paragraphs 0279-0280).
Regarding claim 15, Shear disclosed that the control system is configured such that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria require user authentication using a first fingerprint sensor of the apparatus, a second fingerprint sensor of the apparatus, a third fingerprint sensor of the apparatus, an iris sensor, or combinations thereof (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0239, 0254-0259 and 500 for example).
Regarding claim 16, Shear disclosed one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions for performing a method stored thereon, the method comprising:
determining, by a control system, an authentication rule to authenticate a user of a device, wherein the authentication rule specifies both liveness criteria and authentication criteria, the authentication criteria specifying operation parameters that govern user interaction with one or more biometric sensors (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example);
determining, by the control system, satisfaction of the liveness criteria based on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the device (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example);
determining, by the control system, user interaction with the one or more biometric sensors of the device in accordance with the operation parameters (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example); and
responsive to the user interaction in accordance with the operation parameters, providing, by the control system, biometric data obtained from the one or more biometric sensors for authentication (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0178, 0239, 0254-0259, 0279-0280 and 500 for example).
Regarding claim 17, Shear disclosed that determining satisfaction of the liveness criteria based on sensor data captured by the one or more sensors of the device includes detecting a touch gesture, hand gesture, squeeze gesture, voice, face, blood pressure (BP), button activation, or combinations thereof (Shear Paragraph 0282 for example).
Regarding claim 18, Shear disclosed providing, by the control system, user instructions requesting the biometric data based at least in part on the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0239, 0254-0259 and 500 for example – and Paragraphs 0279-0280).
Regarding claim 20, Shear disclosed that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria require user authentication using a first fingerprint sensor of the device, a second fingerprint sensor of the device, a third fingerprint sensor of the device, an iris sensor, or combinations thereof (Shear Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0239, 0254-0259 and 500 for example).
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 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 of this title, 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 4, 10, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shear, and further in view of Satoh (US Application Publication Number 2001/0002933).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19, it is not presently clear to the examiner (due to the extreme length of Shear) whether Shear taught that the user instructions provide an order in which the one or more biometric sensors should be activated, an amount of force to be applied to the one or more biometric sensors, an amount of time the one or more biometric sensors should be activated, or combinations thereof.
Satoh taught that in a system for capturing and authenticating using fingerprints, the display can show how long the user needs to have their finger on the sensor (Satoh Paragraph 0070 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Satoh in the biometric authentication system of Shear by displaying the amount of time the user needs to touch the fingerprint sensor. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable the user to know how much longer the capture will last.
Regarding claim 10, it is not presently clear to the examiner (due to the extreme length of Shear) whether Shear taught that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria define an amount of time a finger should be placed on at least one of the first fingerprint sensor of the device, the second fingerprint sensor of the device, or the third fingerprint sensor of the device during the user authentication.
Satoh taught that in a system for capturing and authenticating using fingerprints, the display can show how long the user needs to have their finger on the sensor, and taught that this number is based on the number of pixels that need to be captured (Satoh Paragraphs 0052 and 0070 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Satoh in the biometric authentication system of Shear by displaying the amount of time the user needs to touch the fingerprint sensor. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable the user to know how much longer the capture will last.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shear, and further in view of Alten (US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0063230).
Regarding claim 6, Shear did not teach at least two of the first fingerprint sensor, the second fingerprint sensor, and the third fingerprint sensor are connected to a same controller of the device.
Alten taught an authentication system which included multiple fingerprint sensors connected to a same controller of a device (Alten Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0033-0034, 0072-0076 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Alten in the fingerprint authentication system of Shear by including multiple fingerprint sensors in the device for reading and passing the user’s fingerprints to the authentication tester. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the security of the authentication system by using the plurality of sensors to create authentication gestures including using different fingers being presented in different orders to different sensors.
Regarding claim 7, Shear did not teach that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria require simultaneous operation of at least two of the first fingerprint sensor of the device, the second fingerprint sensor of the device, or the third fingerprint sensor of the device during the user authentication.
Alten taught an authentication system which included multiple fingerprint sensors simultaneously being operated (Alten Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0033-0034, 0072-0076 and claim 5 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Alten in the fingerprint authentication system of Shear by including multiple fingerprint sensors in the device for reading and passing the user’s fingerprints to the authentication tester. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the security of the authentication system by using the plurality of sensors to create authentication gestures including using different fingers being presented in different orders to different sensors.
Regarding claim 8, Shear did not teach that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria define a sequential order for operating at least two of the first fingerprint sensor of the device, the second fingerprint sensor of the device, or the third fingerprint sensor of the device during the user authentication.
Alten taught an authentication system which included multiple fingerprint sensors connected to a same controller of a device (Alten Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0033-0034, 0072-0076 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Alten in the fingerprint authentication system of Shear by including multiple fingerprint sensors in the device for reading and passing the user’s fingerprints to the authentication tester. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the security of the authentication system by using the plurality of sensors to create authentication gestures including using different fingers being presented in different orders to different sensors.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shear, and further in view of Alameh et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0176332) hereinafter referred to as Alameh.
Regarding claim 9, Shear did not teach that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria define an amount of finger force to be applied when operating at least one of the first fingerprint sensor of the device, the second fingerprint sensor of the device, or the third fingerprint sensor of the device during the user authentication.
Alameh taught in a fingerprint authentication system that the operation parameters specified by the authentication criteria define an amount of finger force to be applied when operating the fingerprint sensor of the device (Alameh Paragraph 0031 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have employed the teachings of Alameh in the authentication system of Shear by utilizing pressure information for each reference fingerprint sample. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the number of false rejections of the authentication system.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0284212 taught methods involving randomly or pseudo-randomly selecting one fingerprint authentication case from a plurality of fingerprint authentication cases stored in a memory, each of the fingerprint authentication cases corresponding to one or more fingerprints used during an authentication process, the fingerprint authentication cases including a plurality of multiple-fingerprint authentication cases for which two or more fingerprints are used during the authentication process. Upon determining that the selected fingerprint authentication case is a multiple-fingerprint authentication case, some methods involve controlling a display system to provide a multiple-fingerprint authentication graphical user interface (GUI) indicating at least two digit placement areas corresponding with a fingerprint sensor system area of a fingerprint sensor system, controlling the fingerprint sensor system to obtain fingerprint sensor data corresponding to each of the at least two digit placement areas and performing the authentication process based, at least in part, on the fingerprint sensor data.
Applicant's 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 MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-2PM ET.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
