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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 06 March 2025 amends claims 3, 4, and 7-9. Claim 10 has been cancelled and claims 11-13 have been added. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
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 1-8 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 limitation “storage part”, “acquisition part”, “calculation part”, “conversion and transmission part”, “key generation part”, and “conversion key acquisition part” 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 function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh, WO 2021/167534, in view of Vanishree, JP 2017225116. Referring to claim 1, Loh discloses a biometric recognition system wherein a cloud device 104 stores encrypted biometric templates 110 ([032] & Figure 1: template 110 reads on the claimed first feature(s)) in a database ([013]: database reads on claimed storage part), which meets the limitation of a storage part that stores an encrypted first feature(s). The cloud device 104 receives a captured encrypted biometric template 130 from a user device 124 ([032] & Figure 1: captured encrypted biometric template 130 reads on the claimed second feature), which meets the limitation of an acquisition part that acquires a second feature received and encrypted by a terminal. An authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1), which meets the limitation of a calculation part that calculates a similarity based on the first feature(s) and the second feature.
Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph), which meets the limitation of a conversion and transmission part that converts the similarity into a similarity in a format that can be decrypted by a different server, and transmits the converted similarity to the different server. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Referring to claim 2, Loh discloses that the authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1), which meets the limitation of wherein the calculation part calculates the similarity based on the encrypted first feature(s) and the encrypted second feature, each of which is encrypted.
Referring to claim 3, Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph). Data owner public/private key pair is generated (Page 6, paragraph [4]), which meets the limitation of a key generation part that generates a pair of a secret key and a public key. The re-encryption key is generated using the private key of the data owner and the public key of a user (Page 8, paragraph [15] – Page 9, paragraph [23]: user public key reads on the claimed key acquired from a different server), which meets the limitation of a conversion key acquisition part that acquires a conversion key from the secret key generated by the key generation part and a key acquired from a different server. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Referring to claim 4, Loh discloses that the cloud device 104 stores encrypted biometric templates 110 in a database along with the user ID associated with the biometric template ([013]), which meets the limitation of wherein the storage part stores a user ID(s) that determines a user(s) in association with the first feature(s).
Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph), which meets the limitation of wherein the conversion and transmission part transmits the similarity to a different server in association with the corresponding user ID. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Referring to claim 9, Loh discloses a biometric recognition system wherein a cloud device 104 stores encrypted biometric templates 110 ([032] & Figure 1: template 110 reads on the claimed first feature(s)) in a database ([013]: database reads on claimed storage part), which meets the limitation of causing a computer to store an encrypted first feature(s). The cloud device 104 receives a captured encrypted biometric template 130 from a user device 124 ([032] & Figure 1: captured encrypted biometric template 130 reads on the claimed second feature), which meets the limitation of causing the computer to acquire a second feature received and encrypted by a terminal. An authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1), which meets the limitation of causing the computer to calculate a similarity based on the first feature(s) and the second feature.
Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph), which meets the limitation of causing the computer to convert the similarity into a similarity in a format that can be decrypted by a different server, and transmit the converted similarity to the different server. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Referring to claim 11, Loh discloses that the authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1), which meets the limitation of wherein the calculation part calculates the similarity based on the encrypted first feature(s) and the encrypted second feature, each of which is encrypted.
Referring to claim 12, Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph). Data owner public/private key pair is generated (Page 6, paragraph [4]), which meets the limitation of causing the computer to generate a pair of a secret key and a public key. The re-encryption key is generated using the private key of the data owner and the public key of a user (Page 8, paragraph [15] – Page 9, paragraph [23]: user public key reads on the claimed key acquired from a different server), which meets the limitation of causing the computer to acquire a conversion key from the secret key generated by the key generation part and a key acquired from a different server. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Referring to claim 13, Loh discloses that the cloud device 104 stores encrypted biometric templates 110 in a database along with the user ID associated with the biometric template ([013]), which meets the limitation of wherein the storage part stores a user ID(s) that determines a user(s) in association with the first feature(s).
Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph), which meets the limitation of wherein the conversion and transmission part transmits the similarity to a different server in association with the corresponding user ID. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh, WO 2021/167534, in view of Vanishree, JP 2017225116, and further in view of Kochi, WO 2019138688.
Referring to claim 5, Loh discloses a biometric recognition system wherein a cloud device 104 stores encrypted biometric templates 110 ([032] & Figure 1: cloud device 104 reads on the claimer server; template 110 reads on the claimed first feature(s)) in a database ([013]: database reads on claimed storage part), which meets the limitation of a server, wherein the server includes a storage part that stores an encrypted first feature(s). The cloud device 104 receives a captured encrypted biometric template 130 from a user device 124 ([032] & Figure 1: captured encrypted biometric template 130 reads on the claimed second feature), which meets the limitation of an acquisition part that acquires a second feature received and encrypted by a terminal. An authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1), which meets the limitation of a calculation part that calculates a similarity based on the first feature(s) and the second feature. The cloud device 104 stores encrypted biometric templates 110 in a database along with the user ID associated with the biometric template ([013]), which meets the limitation of wherein the storage part stores a user ID(s) that determines a user(s) in association with the first feature(s). The authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1), which meets the limitation of wherein the calculation part calculates the similarity based on the encrypted first feature(s) and the encrypted second feature, each of which is encrypted.
Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph: request reads on the claimed different server), which meets the limitation of a different server, a conversion and transmission part that converts the similarity into a similarity in a format that can be decrypted by a different server, and transmits the converted similarity to the different server, wherein the conversion and transmission part transmits the similarity to a different server in association with the corresponding user ID, wherein the different server decrypts the similarity [and acquires one user ID based on the similarity and a predetermined reference]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Loh as modified by Venishree does not suggest that the authentication results include the user ID. Kochi discloses authentication results that include a user ID (Page 7, last full paragraph: the result could be mapped to the claimed predetermined reference; However, Examiner notes that the claims do not define or functionally utilize the claimed predetermined reference. Therefore, the claimed predetermined reference could be mapped to any data associated with the claimed similarity.), which meets the limitation of acquires one user ID based on the similarity and a predetermined reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have included a user ID that corresponds to the result as Venishree describes authentication results that include a user ID as one of a finite number of possible results that could have been implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to claim 6, Loh discloses that the authentication result 120 is determined by matching the encrypted biometric templates 110 to the captured encrypted biometric template 130 ([032] & Figure 1).
Loh as modified by Venishree above, does not suggest that the authentication results include the user ID. Kochi discloses authentication results that include a user ID (Page 7, last full paragraph: As applied to Loh, only one similarity is computed since the comparison is one to one. Therefore, the computed similarity would be the “highest” similarity.), which meets the limitation of wherein the different server decrypts the similarity and acquires a user ID associated with a highest simiarlity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have included a user ID that corresponds to the result as Venishree describes authentication results that include a user ID as one of a finite number of possible results that could have been implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to claim 7, Loh does not disclose that the authentication results are converted to a format that can be decrypted by the requester. Vanishree discloses re-encryption of results data using re-encryption key of the requester such that the requester can decrypt the results upon receipt (Page 4, last full paragraph). Data owner public/private key pair is generated (Page 6, paragraph [4]), which meets the limitation of a key generation part that generates a pair of a secret key and a public key. The re-encryption key is generated using the private key of the data owner and the public key of a user (Page 8, paragraph [15] – Page 9, paragraph [23]: user public key reads on the claimed key acquired from a different server), which meets the limitation of a conversion key acquisition part that acquires a conversion key from the secret key generated by the key generation part and a key acquired from a different server. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the authentication results of Loh to have been encrypted with a key of the data subscriber in order to ensure that only the authorized users can access the data and improve data protection and breach prevention as suggested by Venishree (Page 3, second paragraph & Page 4, last full paragraph).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh, WO 2021/167534, in view of Vanishree, JP 2017225116, in view of Kochi, WO 2019138688, and further in view of Subramaniam, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0165942. Referring to claim 8, Loh discloses that the authentication result 120 is returned to the data subscriber 106. Loh does not disclose that the authentication result is provided to a payment server.
Subramaniam discloses an identity provider that performs authentication and returns an authorization token to a client device such that the client device can provide the authorization token, that includes the user id (Figure 7), to a service 108 as a request for a service ([0023]) such as a payment service performed by a payment server 900 accepting payment ([0081]), which meets the limitation of wherein the different server transmits payment information including the one user ID to a payment server and receives payment result information from the payment server. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the data subscriber of Loh to have provided the authentication result to a payment service in order to provide payment services without requiring the payment system to perform the time-consuming authentication steps as suggested by Subramaniam ([0017]-[0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keith, Jr. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0385458, discloses the utilization of biometrics to create identity tokens.
Rindal, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0129531, discloses homomorphic encryption of biometrics that allows for biometric matching to be performed without exposing user biometrics.
Shin, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0314094, discloses biometric authentication that performs biometric comparison using encrypted sample information and encrypted templates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights