DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the (1) action module in communication with the decision engine, wherein the action module performs one or more actions based on the authentication decision, the actions including granting or denying access or flagging the authentication for additional review … wherein the action module further triggers a security protocol when the authentication decision is flagged for additional review; (2) feedback module that provides real-time feedback to the user based on the outcome of the authentication decision, wherein the feedback includes a prompt for additional authentication if the decision is flagged for review; (3) contextual anomaly detection sub-module configured to map feature deviations in the input data stream against multidimensional behavioral baselines derived from time-of-day, device orientation, and ambient noise profiles, wherein the sub-module segments incoming behavioral sequences into micro-events using a state-transition vector engine; (4) fast-track neural submodule optimized for expression recognition under suboptimal lighting conditions; (5) dynamic threshold recalibration module that modifies its classification confidence boundaries based on a rolling average of system-wide false rejection rates, wherein the recalibration is activated when the deviation ratio between expected and observed authentication failure rates exceeds a pre-defined variance threshold, and wherein the module adjusts the AI engine's anomaly scoring function by introducing contextual confidence penalties tied to feature volatility indices derived from recent interaction sequences; (6) attention-based anomaly explainer module configured to generate human-readable explanations for flagged spoof attempts, wherein the module identifies feature subsets with highest contribution to anomaly scoring using layer-wise relevance propagation and gradient-based saliency mapping; and (7) intrusion traceback module that captures volatile system memory snapshots, ongoing sensor feed caches, device process trees, and user application contexts prior to full session kill (claims 1, 8, 12, 14 and 15 – enumeration and emphasis added) (see rejections below under 35 USC §112 for further details) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Inconsistent spacing and placement of figure identification and parenthesis can be found on page 8. For example, page 8 discloses “device behavior data(102a)” as well as “decision engine (106)configured” in the same paragraph; and
Inconsistent spelling of a term using both sub-module and submodule (see at least claims 1 and 8).
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.
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: (1) an action module in communication with the decision engine, wherein the action module performs one or more actions based on the authentication decision, the actions including granting or denying access or flagging the authentication for additional review … wherein the action module further triggers a security protocol when the authentication decision is flagged for additional review; (2) a feedback module that provides real-time feedback to the user based on the outcome of the authentication decision, wherein the feedback includes a prompt for additional authentication if the decision is flagged for review; (3) wherein the pattern recognition module further comprises a contextual anomaly detection sub-module configured to map feature deviations in the input data stream against multidimensional behavioral baselines derived from time-of-day, device orientation, and ambient noise profiles, wherein the sub-module segments incoming behavioral sequences into micro-events using a state-transition vector engine; (4) wherein the captured features are processed using a fast-track neural submodule optimized for expression recognition under suboptimal lighting conditions; (5) wherein the decision engine includes a dynamic threshold recalibration module that modifies its classification confidence boundaries based on a rolling average of system-wide false rejection rates, wherein the recalibration is activated when the deviation ratio between expected and observed authentication failure rates exceeds a pre-defined variance threshold, and wherein the module adjusts the AI engine's anomaly scoring function by introducing contextual confidence penalties tied to feature volatility indices derived from recent interaction sequences; (6) wherein the AI engine includes an attention-based anomaly explainer module configured to generate human-readable explanations for flagged spoof attempts, wherein the module identifies feature subsets with highest contribution to anomaly scoring using layer-wise relevance propagation and gradient-based saliency mapping; and (7) wherein the session termination protocol triggered by the action module is augmented with an intrusion traceback module that captures volatile system memory snapshots, ongoing sensor feed caches, device process trees, and user application contexts prior to full session kill (claims 1, 8, 12, 14 and 15 – enumeration and emphasis added).
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.
The various modules and sub-modules do not appear to include any corresponding structure (based on at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0029] of the PG Pub teaching a generic block diagram of components). Even if it is assumed that a computer or CPU is inherent for implementing the “unit,” there is no sufficient algorithm corresponding to the claimed functions. In this instance, the structure corresponding to claim limitations that are computer-implemented specialized functions must include a general purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithms that the computer uses to perform each claimed specialized function (see MPEP 2181 (II) (B)).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, Examiner notes there does not appear to be any sufficient disclosure to support the means plus function recitation of specialized computer functions. Per MPEP 2181(IV):
"Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph" (emphasis added).
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As discussed above, Examiner notes there does not appear to be any sufficient disclosure to support the means plus function recitation of the various modules and sub-modules. Per MPEP 2181(II):
"35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” “If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA section 112 ].” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)" (emphasis added).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Douglas et al. (USPN 2019/0220583) teaches usage of an AI engine to prevent biometric spoofing (see at least paragraph [0162]);
Chen et al. (USPN 2015/0310444) teaches an adaptive biometric authentication system; and
Tredoux et al. (USPN 2010/0115610) and Maizels et al. (USPN 2024/0073219) teaches the biometric and behavioral analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 830am-5pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached on 571-272-7603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTONIO XAVIER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622