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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, the recitation “that has been applied by the stimulation unit” contains awkward claim language that may obscure the intended scope of the claims. For example, Applicant may amend the phrase to recite “applied by the stimulation unit”;
Regarding claims 2-3, Applicant is required to amend the claims to positively recite the intended operation of the stimulation unit. For example, the phrase “the stimulation unit can apply” may be replaced with “is configured to apply” or “applies”;
Regarding claims 3, the phrase “a plurality of stimulations in which in which” should read as “a plurality of stimulations in which”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a stimulation unit,” “a biological information acquisition unit,” and “a personal information setting unit” in claim 1;
“an authentication unit” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perini, II, US- 20140020089-A1 (hereinafter “Perini ‘089”).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Perini ‘089 discloses: An information processing apparatus comprising:
a stimulation unit configured to apply a plurality of stimulations having first relationship;
a biological information acquisition unit configured to acquire a brain wave level for the plurality of stimulations applied by the stimulation unit
(FIG. 1, [0017], The ACSSECR invention provides a system and methodology to provide authentication of individuals based on real time analysis of EEG (electroencephalogram) data – including a brain wave level; [0044], Cogkey Stimulus File (CKSF) – a plurality of stimulations having first relationship, Non-target stimulus file (NTSF), stimulus presentation unit (SPU) – to apply a plurality of stimulations, wireless EEG collection unit (WECU), EEG collection and processing unit (ECPU) – to acquire a brain wave level for the plurality of stimulations applied by the stimulation unit, a statistical processing algorithm (SPA) and an access control unit (ACU); [0045], The preferred embodiment uses the most prominent ERP, the P3 shown in FIG. 2, to measure the cognitive response to target (having he first relationship) and non-target stimuli (e.g., “visual, auditory or tactile or a combination of these”; see [0018]). Significant difference in response to these two stimuli types creates an authentication confidence level used to allow or deny access to the device, system, facility, etc.; [0046], The unconscious response results in a measurable electrical potential difference in the brain, triggered by the cognitive function of associating the observed stimulus with stored memories of the same or similar category stimulus ... The ERP "event" is the user detection of the target and the ERP "potential" is the measured P3 response. The shared secret or target stimulus is called the Cogkey; this paragraph describes the characteristics of target stimuli (also referred to as “CogKeys”), namely, the first relationship shared among the target stimuli, i.e., the plurality of stimulations);
a personal information setting unit configured to set, as a personal information determination value, first personal information associating the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship that has been applied by the stimulation unit, and a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels acquired by the biological information acquisition unit at this time (FIG. 1, [0044], Cogkey Stimulus File (CKSF), Non-target stimulus file (NTSF), stimulus presentation unit (SPU; the stimulation unit), wireless EEG collection unit (WECU), EEG collection and processing unit (ECPU; the biological information acquisition unit) – where a plurality of brain wave levels is acquired, a statistical processing algorithm (SPA; a personal information setting unit for setting, as a personal information determination value, first personal information) and an access control unit (ACU);[0045], The preferred embodiment uses the most prominent ERP, the P3 shown in FIG. 2, to measure the cognitive response (given in amplitudes, e.g., in uV; see FIG. 17) to target and non-target stimuli. Significant difference (calculated with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels) in response to these two stimuli types creates an authentication confidence level used to allow or deny access to the device, system, facility, etc.; [0018], the invention uses EEG processing and analysis algorithms to compare responses (with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels) to target and non-target stimuli; [0053], The invention calculates the amplitude of a subject's averaged ERP response to the Cogkey(s) (associating the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship) and statistically compares it (with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels; see FIG. 17) to responses to non-target stimuli. The invention converts the target and non-target statistical comparison into a confidence level (CL) that shows the degree to which the user cognitively recognizes his or her chosen Cogkey ... The method uses statistics to calculate the target and non-target confidence intervals (the first personal information) that assure responses are differentiated with no overlap of those intervals. The method is repeatable and provides consistent results; note that according to FIG. 14, amplitudes, differences, means, and deviations associated with responses to both target stimuli and non-target stimuli are calculated and used for obtaining confidence intervals for both stimuli in order to assure there are no overlaps of those intervals (meaning “allow access”), and furthermore, the confidence level (CL) is determined based on a set including both the target confidence interval (the first personal information) and the non-target confidence interval, wherein the target confidence interval is set as an element of the set (a personal information determination value)).
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Perini ‘089 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Perini ‘089 discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the stimulation unit can apply a plurality of stimulations having second relationship different from the first relationship, and
the personal information setting unit sets, as the personal information determination value, second personal information associating the plurality of stimulations having the second relationship that has been applied by the stimulation unit, and a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels acquired by the biological information acquisition unit at this time, together with the first personal information
(FIG. 1, [0044], Cogkey Stimulus File (CKSF), Non-target stimulus file (NTSF), stimulus presentation unit (SPU; the stimulation unit), wireless EEG collection unit (WECU), EEG collection and processing unit (ECPU; the biological information acquisition unit) – where a plurality of brain wave levels is acquired, a statistical processing algorithm (SPA; the personal information setting unit for setting, as the personal information determination value, second personal information) and an access control unit (ACU);[0045], The preferred embodiment uses the most prominent ERP, the P3 shown in FIG. 2, to measure the cognitive response (given in amplitudes, e.g., in uV; see FIG. 17) to target and non-target stimuli (a plurality of stimulations having second relationship different from the first relationship, which is the target stimuli). Significant difference (calculated with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels) in response to these two stimuli types creates an authentication confidence level used to allow or deny access to the device, system, facility, etc.; [0018], the invention uses EEG processing and analysis algorithms to compare responses (with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels) to target and non-target stimuli; [0053], The invention calculates the amplitude of a subject's averaged ERP response to the Cogkey(s) and statistically compares it (with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels; see FIG. 17) to responses to non-target stimuli (associating the plurality of stimulations having the second relationship). The invention converts the target and non-target statistical comparison into a confidence level (CL) that shows the degree to which the user cognitively recognizes his or her chosen Cogkey ... The method uses statistics to calculate the target and non-target confidence intervals (second personal information) that assure responses are differentiated with no overlap of those intervals. The method is repeatable and provides consistent results; note that according to FIG. 14, amplitudes, differences, means, and deviations associated with responses to both target stimuli and non-target stimuli are calculated and used for obtaining confidence intervals for both stimuli in order to assure there are no overlaps of those intervals (meaning “allow access”), and furthermore, the confidence level (CL) is determined based on a set including both the target confidence interval and the non-target confidence interval (the second personal information), wherein the non-target confidence interval is set as an element of the set (the personal information determination value) – at the same time, the target confidence interval is also set, that is, together with the first personal information).
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 1):
Perini ‘089 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Perini ‘089 discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the stimulation unit can apply a plurality of stimulations in which an unrelated image is included in a plurality of stimulations having the first relationship
(FIG. 1, [0044], Cogkey Stimulus File (CKSF) – a plurality of stimulations having the first relationship, Non-target stimulus file (NTSF), stimulus presentation unit (SPU; the stimulation unit) – to apply a plurality of stimulations, wireless EEG collection unit (WECU), EEG collection and processing unit (ECPU), a statistical processing algorithm (SPA) and an access control unit (ACU); [0045], The preferred embodiment uses the most prominent ERP, the P3 shown in FIG. 2, to measure the cognitive response to target (having the first relationship) and non-target stimuli (e.g., “visual, auditory or tactile or a combination of these”; see [0018]). Significant difference in response to these two stimuli types creates an authentication confidence level used to allow or deny access to the device, system, facility, etc.; FIG. 4, [0065], the functional flow of the stimulus presentation ... If image stimuli (image), the user sits in front of a screen to view the stimuli (16); [0066], The SPU selects Cogkeys (having the first relationship) randomly (i.e., unrelated) from the Cogkey stimulus file (CKSF) (a plurality of stimulations in which an unrelated image is included in a plurality of stimulations) and the non-targets from the NTSF (21) with a ration of 10-20% Cogkeys and 80-90% random non-targets (20));
the personal information setting unit sets, as the personal information determination value, third personal information associating a plurality of stimulations in which in which an unrelated image is included in the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship, and
a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels acquired by the biological information acquisition unit at this time, together with the first personal information
(FIG. 3, [0057], From the Stimulus Archive (a plurality of stimulations), the user may select audio, visual or combined Cogkeys (based on system security policy) – the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship; [0060], The NTSF (a) is a very large set of random images or sounds automatically selected from the stimulus archive (5); in other words, both the CKSF and the NTSF (having third personal information associating a plurality of stimulations) are populated using stimuli obtained from the Stimulus Archive (a plurality of stimulations). Therefore, the set of stimuli from which the NTSF images are randomly selected (an related image) overlaps (included in) with the set of stimuli from which the CKSF stimuli (the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship) are selected; FIG. 1, [0044], Cogkey Stimulus File (CKSF), Non-target stimulus file (NTSF), stimulus presentation unit (SPU), wireless EEG collection unit (WECU), EEG collection and processing unit (ECPU; the biological information acquisition unit) – where a plurality of brain wave levels is acquired, a statistical processing algorithm (SPA; the personal information setting unit for setting, as the personal information determination value, third personal information) and an access control unit (ACU);[0045], The preferred embodiment uses the most prominent ERP, the P3 shown in FIG. 2, to measure the cognitive response (given in amplitudes, e.g., in uV; see FIG. 17) to target and non-target stimuli. Significant difference (calculated with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels) in response to these two stimuli types creates an authentication confidence level used to allow or deny access to the device, system, facility, etc.; note that according to FIG. 14, amplitudes, differences, means, and deviations associated with responses to both target stimuli and non-target stimuli are calculated and used for obtaining confidence intervals for both stimuli in order to assure there are no overlaps of those intervals (meaning “allow access”), and furthermore, the confidence level (CL) is determined based on a set including both the target confidence interval and the non-target confidence interval (third personal information), wherein the non-target confidence interval is set as an element of the set (the personal information determination) – at the same time, the target confidence interval is also set, that is, together with the first personal information).
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Perini ‘089 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference.
Perini ‘089 discloses: a personal information storage unit configured to store the personal information determination value set by the personal information setting unit; and
an authentication unit configured to perform authentication processing by comparing first personal information associating the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship that has been applied by the stimulation unit, and a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels acquired by the biological information acquisition unit at this time, and the personal information determination value stored in the personal information storage unit.
(FIG. 1, [0044], Cogkey Stimulus File (CKSF), Non-target stimulus file (NTSF), stimulus presentation unit (SPU; the stimulation unit), wireless EEG collection unit (WECU), EEG collection and processing unit (ECPU; the biological information acquisition unit) – where a plurality of brain wave levels is acquired, a statistical processing algorithm (SPA; the personal information setting unit for setting the personal information determination value) and an access control unit (ACU; an authentication unit configured to perform authentication processing); [0045], The preferred embodiment uses the most prominent ERP, the P3 shown in FIG. 2, to measure the cognitive response (given in amplitudes, e.g., in uV; see FIG. 17) to target and non-target stimuli. Significant difference (calculated with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels) in response to these two stimuli types creates an authentication confidence level used to allow or deny access to the device, system, facility, etc.; [0053], The invention calculates the amplitude of a subject's averaged ERP response to the Cogkey(s) (the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship) and statistically compares it (with a difference value of a plurality of brain wave levels; see FIG. 17) to responses to non-target stimuli. The invention converts the target and non-target statistical comparison into a confidence level (CL) that shows the degree to which the user cognitively recognizes his or her chosen Cogkey ... The method uses statistics to calculate the target and non-target confidence intervals (first personal information – the target confidence interval – associating the plurality of stimulations having the first relationship, which is to be compared with the non-target confidence interval, that is, comparing first personal information) that assure responses are differentiated with no overlap of those intervals. The method is repeatable and provides consistent results; note that because the ACU ultimately determines whether to allow or deny access (perform authentication processing) based on the calculated CL, it is a necessary consequence that the confidence intervals (the personal information determination value) used in generating the CL are maintained within the system, at least until the access determination is completed – the personal information determination value is stored in the personal information storage unit).
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Per claim 5 (independent):
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Per claim 6 (independent):
The limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Castinado et al., US-20190132733-A1 – the invention generates a user-specific baseline profile by collecting and analyzing EEG responses to know stimuli using techniques such as spectral analysis, ERP, P300, and CEREBRE-based biometric recognition. During authentication, a current EEG reading is compared with the baseline EEG profile to determine a confidence level of identity matching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGSEOK PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-4332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30 and Alternate Fridays 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, PHILIP CHEA can be reached at (571)272-3951. 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.
/SANGSEOK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights