DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/5/2026 has been entered.
2. Acknowledgement is made to the amendment, filed 6/5/2026. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 have been newly added. Claims 21-40 are pending.
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.
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.
3. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trani (US 2016/0343187 A1) in view of Lochan Dass et al. (US 2019/0333070 A1), hereinafter Lochan Dass.
Regarding claim 21, Trani discloses a system, comprising:
an identity system device (118 – system controller); and
a local electronic device that: obtains a digital representation of a biometric for a person [0109 & 0113]; and
uses the digital representation of the biometric to load information for the person from the identity system device to a local cache (114 – verification database) [0072, 0083, 0106, & 0107].
Regarding claim 28, Trani discloses a system, comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to:
obtain a digital representation of a biometric for a person [0109 & 0113];
use the digital representation of the biometric to load information for the person from an identity system device (118 – system controller) to a local cache (114 – verification database) [0072, 0083, 0106, & 0107].
Regarding claim 35, Trani discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a digital representation of a biometric for a person [0109 & 0113]; and
using the digital representation of the biometric to load information for the person from an identity system device (118 – system controller) to a local cache (114 – verification database) [0072, 0083, 0106, & 0107].
With respect to claims 21, 28, & 35, the teachings of Trani have been discussed above.
Trani, directed to a system for determining user authorization via biometric identifiers (Abstract), teachings utilizing a local cache to verify a user’s identity [0069, 0072, 0112, & 0113], but is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing determining whether an age of the person at least meets a threshold using the information in the local cache, and deleting the information from the local cache after an amount of time when the information is unused, as recited in claims 21, 28, & 35.
Lochan Dass teaches, regarding claims 21, 28, & 35, determining whether an age of the person at least meets a threshold using the information in the local cache, and deleting the information from the local cache after an amount of time when the information is unused [0008, 0022, & 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide for the age and deleting features of Lochan Dass within the system of Trani for at least the purpose of providing for improved convenience, enhanced safety, and even higher security of sensitive personal information [0003 & 0040].
Regarding claim 22, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the amount of time resets when information in the local cache is used [0022-0024 & 0027].
Regarding claim 23, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the local electronic device deletes the information from the local cache after performing an action [0022-0024].
Regarding claim 24, Trani, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the digital representation of the biometric corresponds to at least a portion of a hand of the person or at least a portion of a face of the person [0025, 0082, & 0129].
Regarding claim 25, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the local electronic device determines whether to authorize a transaction based on whether the age of the person at least meets the threshold [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 26, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 25, wherein the transaction relates to alcohol [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 27, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the local electronic device displays whether the age of the person at least meets the threshold [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 29, Trani, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the at least one non-transitory storage medium and the at least one processor are incorporated into a same electronic device [0109 & 0113].
Regarding claim 30, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the transaction involves sale of alcohol [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 31, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to output at least a portion of the information [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 32, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the threshold is twenty one years of age [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 33, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to process a payment for the transaction [0024, 0025, 0035, & 0038].
Regarding claim 34, Trani, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 28, further comprising a biometric reader device communicably coupled to the at least one processor that obtains the digital representation of the biometric [0109 & 0113].
Regarding claim 36, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 35, wherein deleting the information from the local cache is performed after an amount of time [0022-0024].
Regarding claim 37, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the information is unused during the amount of time [0022-0024].
Regarding claim 38, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 35, wherein the threshold is twenty one years of age or eighteen years of age [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 39, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 35, further comprising outputting whether the age of the person at least meets the threshold [0008 & 0034].
Regarding claim 40, Lochan Dass, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 39, wherein outputting whether the age of the person at least meets the threshold comprises outputting whether the age of the person at least meets the threshold on at least one screen [0008 & 0034].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-1301. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F,7-3 EST. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: paultep.savusdiphol@uspto.gov
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 and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas K. Pham can be reached on (571) 272-3689. 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.
/PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights