DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 8/5/2025 has been fully considered.
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined. Claims 10-12 have been canceled.
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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending US Application 19/161803 and US Patent 12591648. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
“An information updating device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: detect a predetermined operation of a device associated with authentication performed using encrypted biometric information about a user; and update, in a case where the predetermined operation is detected, encryption key information used to encrypt the biometric information about the user and target biometric information encrypted with the encryption key information” (claim 1, instant application) is analogous to
“An information updating device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: compare a verification score indicating a similarity degree between query biometric information and target biometric information, calculated in authentication implemented by verifying the query biometric information generated by encrypting biometric information of a user using encryption key information against the target biometric information encrypted using the encryption key information, with a first threshold; and update the encryption key information, in a case where the verification score is smaller than the first threshold and update the target biometric information using the updated encryption key information” (claim 1, copending application 19/161803) and analogous to
“A biometric authentication system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the biometric authentication system to: generate, based on biometric information, initial values of (i) a template used for concealing biometric information and (ii) a verification key used for verification of the concealed biometric information, store the template in a template storage and store the verification key in a verification key storage, generate an update value; update the template stored in the template storage by multiplying a value contained in the template by the update value, and update the verification key stored in the verification key storage by multiplying a value contained in the verification key by the update value“ (patent 12591648).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims of the instant application have not in fact been patented.
The claims of the conflicting patents and/or applications contain every element of claims of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species with that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is “anticipated” by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court’s predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic claim. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1, 9 recite the limitation "detect an operation of a device associated with", making it indefinite what is associated with authentication, the device or the operation.
Claim 5 is indefinite if the device or the operation are associated with the authentication.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 3 recites detecting a list of events but it is indefinite how are they linked to claims 1 and 2, and appear disconnected from and unrelated to claims 1 and 2.
This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) making a determination and updating information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover making a determination and updating/generating a key in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a device” language, the claim encompasses a user making a determination and generating a key as introduction to elementary encryption classes are taught.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gehrmann (20200127824).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Gehrmann teaches An information updating device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:/ An information updating method comprising (abstract):
detect a predetermined operation of a device associated with authentication performed using encrypted biometric information about a user (par.7-12, par.111-114, determine time has passed); and
update, in a case where the predetermined operation is detected, encryption key information used to encrypt the biometric information about the user and target biometric information encrypted with the encryption key information (par.11-114, determine time has passed, update keys).
Regarding claim 5, Gehrmann teaches An authentication device comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (abstract):
acquire biometric information about a user; encrypt the acquired biometric information with encryption key information to generate query biometric information; authenticate the user by verifying the query biometric information with target biometric information encrypted using the encryption key information (par.43-52, capture and enroll biometrics, capture and authenticate user, encrypt and store biometrics);
detect a predetermined operation of a device associated with the authentication (par.7-12, par.111-114, determine time has passed); and
update the encryption key information and update the target biometric information using the updated encryption key information in a case where the predetermined operation is detected (par.111-114, determine time has passed, update keys).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Gehrmann teaches wherein the device associated with the authentication is a vehicle, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect a predetermined operation in the vehicle (par.50-56).
Regarding claim 8, Gehrmann teaches wherein the authentication device is used to authenticate the user in a vehicle interior entry of the vehicle (par.50-56).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehrmann (20200127824), and further in view of Woo (20190065732).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Gehrmann teaches does not expressly disclose, however, Woo teaches detect at least one of opening/closing of a door of the vehicle, activation of a drive system in the vehicle, start of the vehicle, locking of a door of the vehicle, and stop of the drive system (par.120-126).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gehrmann to detect additional events as taught by Woo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further provide security to additional events and communications (Woo, par.1-12, 120-130).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehrmann (20200127824), and further in view of Yang (20200099522).
Regarding claim 4, Gehrmann teaches update the encryption key information and updates the target biometric information using the updated encryption key information after predetermined times (par.111-114) but does not expressly disclose, however, Yang teaches update the encryption key information and updates the target biometric information using the updated encryption key information in a case where the predetermined operation is detected a predetermined number of times (par.240-250).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gehrmann to provide key updates as taught by Yang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support additional key updates/distribution for secure access to vehicles (Yang, par.1-22, 240-250).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to key updates in the context of biometric authentication.
Cosentino (20240259197) teaches updating keys upon detection of vehicle events.
Fay (20220253389) teaches Detecting 602 that the key encryption key should be decommissioned may be carried out, for example, by determining whether the key encryption key has been utilized for a threshold period of time after which a new key encryption key should be used, by determining whether the key encryption key has been utilized a threshold number of times after which a new key encryption key should be used, by determining whether the key encryption key has been cracked, in response to a request to use a new key encryption key, and so on. The example method depicted in FIG. 6 also includes re-encrypting 604 one or more data encryption keys with a new key encryption key. In the example method depicted in FIG. 6, re-encrypting 604 one or more data encryption keys with a new key encryption key may be carried out, for example, in response to affirmatively determining that the one or more key encryption keys is encrypted utilizing an expiring key encryption key. Re-encrypting 604 one or more data encryption keys with a new key encryption key may be carried out, for example, by decrypting the data encryption key using the expiring key encryption key and encrypting the un-encrypted data encryption key with the new key encryption key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
