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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/222,490 filed 5/29/2025.
As per instant Amendment, claims 1-15 have been examined and are pending. Claim 1 is the independent claim. This Action is made non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “said method having, as input datum, a proof biometric feature, and delivering, as output datum, a proof biometric template, wherein the proof biometric template is generated from the proof biometric feature according to an encoding scheme representative of the distance according to a metric, between the proof biometric feature and a reference biometric feature.” For better clarity, it’s suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite active steps of the claimed method. Following is such an example:
“A method comprising:
inputting a proof biometric feature;
generating a proof biometric template from the proof biometric feature according to an encoding scheme between the proof biometric feature and a reference biometric feature;
outputting the proof biometric template.”
Claim 11 recites “a biometric identification method, comprising: a) transmission, by a biometric identification terminal, of a proof biometric feature of an individual to an encoding terminal; b) generation, by the encoding terminal, of a proof biometric template using an encoding method as claimed in claim 1; c) reception, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template; and d) comparison, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template with at least one reference biometric template of a database of reference biometric templates.”
For better clarity, it’s suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite active steps of the claimed method. Following is such an example:
“a biometric identification method, comprising:
a) transmitting, by a biometric identification terminal, of a proof biometric feature of an individual to an encoding terminal;
b) generating, by the encoding terminal, of a proof biometric template using an encoding method as claimed in claim 1;
c) receiving, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template; and
d) comparing, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template with at least one reference biometric template of a database of reference biometric templates.”
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: “means for implementing the encoding method” in claim 9, “an acquisition device configured to acquire” in claim 15.
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 § 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2; Claim 2 is rejected under 112(b) as being indefinite as reciting both method and system claim. Claims 2 is dependent on claim 1, which is a method claim (i.e., reciting active steps). However, the claim also recites system embodiment (i.e., “a pre-encoder configured to generate …”). A claim is considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of its scope. See MPEP 2173.05(p) and IPXL Holdings, 430 F.3d at 1384; See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and Ex Parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (BPAI 1990) at 1550-51.") for details.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or being significantly more.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitations “generation [] of a proof biometric template …” and “comparison, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template…” Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites “transmission …” and “reception …” However, said operations are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said operations are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., biometric identification terminal, encoding terminal, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 12-15, claims 12-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claim 13 recites the limitations: “generation of a proof…” and “verification ….” and claim 15 recites “acquire…” and “execute…” Said steps are either directed to mental processes and/or in a form of insignificant extra-solution activities; The aforementioned steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 12-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015.
Regarding claim 1, Mandal discloses a method for encoding, implemented by an encoding terminal, a biometric template, said method having:
as input datum, a proof biometric feature, and delivering, as output datum, a proof biometric template, wherein the proof biometric template is generated from the biometric feature according to an encoding scheme representative of the distance according to a metric, between the biometric feature and a reference biometric feature (Mandal, paragraph 0016, first template representative of features; first transformed biometric template; second transformed biometric temple, matching of first transformed biometric template and second transformed biometric template; paragraph 0053, similarity between first biometric temple and second biometric template; paragraph 0080, first biometric template representative of features; paragraph 0083, second biometric template representative of features).
Mandal does not explicitly disclose the biometric feature is a proof biometric feature.
However, in an analogous art, Machani discloses a proof biometric feature (Machani, col. 7, lines 40-53, original biometric template generated by feature logic; FIG. 2, user device 120 includes feature extractor logic 131 and template splitting and reconstruction logic 130, col. 14, lines 43-59, generation of the original biometric template, specific features of the captured biometric data)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Machani with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal to include a proof biometric template. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of a biometric template to verify the authenticity of reference biometric templates (Machani, col. 2, lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 7, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 1,. Mandal and Machani further disclose the encoding scheme is specific to the biometric terminal (Mandal, FIG. 1, user module 110 within user device 102, paragraph 0045, user module 110 generates a transformed biometric template).
Regarding claim 8, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 1, Mandal and Machani further disclose wherein the reference biometric feature is specific to the user of the encoding terminal (Mandal, paragraph 0016, the first biometric template representative of a biometric of a user).
Regarding claim 9, Mandal and Machani disclose an encoding terminal comprising means for implementing the encoding method as claimed in claim 1 (Mandal, paragraph 0025, user device may include a mobile phone; paragraph 0059, hamming distance, similarity, transformed biometric template).
Regarding claim 10, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding terminal as claimed in claim 9, Mandal and Machani further discloses wherein the encoding terminal is a mobile electronic device (Mandal, paragraph 0025, user device may include a mobile phone).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015, and furthermore in view of Kaga (CN102087686), published June 8, 2011.
Regarding claim 2, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 1.
Mandal and Machani do not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding scheme comprises a pre-encoder configured to generate an internal reference biometric template generated from the reference biometric feature and an intermediate proof biometric template generated from the proof biometric feature, the distance according to a metric being a distance between the internal reference biometric template and the intermediate proof biometric template.
However, in an analogous art, Kaga discloses wherein the encoding scheme comprises a pre-encoder configured to generate an internal reference biometric template generated from the reference biometric feature and an intermediate proof biometric template generated from the proof biometric feature, the distance according to a metric being a distance between the internal reference biometric template and the intermediate proof biometric template (Kaga, paragraph 0059, biometric, first template, paragraph 0064, temporary registration of the template, paragraph 0068, second template, paragraph 0113, first template, second template).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kaga with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal and Machani to include wherein the encoding scheme comprises a pre-encoder configured to generate an internal reference biometric template generated from the reference biometric feature and an intermediate proof biometric template generated from the proof biometric feature, the distance according to a metric being a distance between the internal reference biometric template and the intermediate proof biometric template. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of inhibiting the error automatic registration of risk of template of the biometric authentication system (Kaga: paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 3, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 1.
Mandal and Machani do not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding scheme comprises a transition function or a distribution function centered on the distance, according to a metric, between an internal reference biometric template generated from the reference biometric feature and an intermediate proof biometric template generated from the proof biometric feature.
However, in an analogous art, Kaga discloses wherein the encoding scheme comprises a transition function or a distribution function centered on the distance, according to a metric, between an internal reference biometric template generated from the reference biometric feature and an intermediate proof biometric template generated from the proof biometric feature (Kaga, paragraph 0059, biometric, first template, paragraph 0064, temporary registration of the template, paragraph 0068, second template, paragraph 0113, first template, second template).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kaga with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal and Machani to include wherein the encoding scheme comprises a transition function or a distribution function centered on the distance, according to a metric, between an internal reference biometric template generated from the reference biometric feature and an intermediate proof biometric template generated from the proof biometric feature. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of inhibiting the error automatic registration of risk of template of the biometric authentication system (Kaga: paragraph 0010).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015, and furthermore in view of Hubner (US20120303966), PCT filed November 8, 2010.
Regarding claim 4, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 1.
Mandal and Machani do not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding scheme further comprises a noise-generation function, preferably a noise-generation function that has, as input variable, the proof biometric feature.
However, Hubner discloses wherein the encoding scheme further comprises a noise-generation function, preferably a noise-generation function that has, as input variable, the proof biometric feature (Hubner, paragraph 0010, biometric features; paragraph 0052, generating, noise source; paragraph 0060, random number generator, hashing function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hubner with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal and Machani to include wherein the encoding scheme further comprises a noise-generation function, preferably a noise-generation function that has, as input variable, the proof biometric feature. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of assigning a secret (Hubner: abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 4. Mandal, Machani, and Hubner disclose wherein the noise-generation function comprises a function that generates a random number from the proof biometric feature, selected from a hash function, a weighted summation function and a reduction function .(Hubner, paragraph 0010, biometric features; paragraph 0052, generating, noise source; paragraph 0060, random number generator, hashing function).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015, and furthermore in view of Zeng (US20240331443), published April 1, 2024.
Regarding claim 6, Mandal and Machani disclose the encoding method as claimed in claim 1.
Mandal and Machani do not explicitly disclose wherein the encoding scheme is implemented in the form of a neural network trained beforehand using a teacher-student protocol..
However, in an analogous art, Zeng discloses wherein the encoding scheme is implemented in the form of a neural network trained beforehand using a teacher-student protocol (Zeng, paragraph 0050, biometric template; paragraph 0097, training; paragraph 0099, encoding neural network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeng with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal and Machani to include wherein the encoding scheme is implemented in the form of a neural network trained beforehand using a teacher-student protocol. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of resilience against attacks (Zeng: paragraph 0050).
Claims 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015, and furthermore in view of Chen (US20240107127), PCT filed November 15, 2021.
Regarding claim 11, Mandal and Machani disclose A biometric identification method, comprising: b) generation, by the encoding terminal, of a proof biometric template using an encoding method as claimed in claim 1 (Mandal, paragraph 0016, first template representative of features; first transformed biometric template; second transformed biometric temple, matching of first transformed biometric template and second transformed biometric template; paragraph 0053, similarity between first biometric temple and second biometric template; paragraph 0080, first biometric template representative of features; paragraph 0083, second biometric template representative of features) (Machani, col. 7, lines 40-53, original biometric template generated by feature logic; FIG. 2, user device 120 includes feature extractor logic 131 and template splitting and reconstruction logic 130, col. 14, lines 43-59, generation of the original biometric template, specific features of the captured biometric data); c) reception, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template; and (Machani, col. 15, line 66, through col. 16, line 3, server 602 send template to user device); d) comparison, by the biometric identification terminal, of the proof biometric template with at least one reference biometric template of a database of reference biometric templates (Mandal: paragraph 0016, match templates).
Mandal and Machani do not explicitly disclose a) transmission, by a biometric identification terminal, of a proof biometric feature of an individual to an encoding terminal.
However, in an analogous art, a) transmission, by a biometric identification terminal, of a proof biometric feature of an individual to an encoding terminal (Chen, paragraph 0261, send extracted user biometric features to server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal and Machani to include transmission of a biometric feature and comparison of a biometric template. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of enhanced video generation (Chen: paragraphs 0004-0006).
Regarding claim 12, Mandal, Machani, and Chen disclose the identification method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the comparison step d) is executed using a fuzzy search protocol (Machani, col. 1, lines 41-67, fuzzy searching).
Regarding claim 15, Mandal, Machani, and Chen disclose a biometric identification system, comprising: a biometric identification terminal comprising an acquisition device configured to acquire at least one proof biometric feature of a user; a storage medium comprising a database of reference biometric templates; the encoding terminal; the system being configured to execute the steps of an identification method as claimed in claim 11 (Mandal, paragraph 0094, stored, encoded; paragraph 0095, user device, template; paragraph 0096, template, stored, FIG. 2 shows the user device 102 includes a sensor 198, memory 222A, processor 224A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015, and Chen (US20240107127), PCT filed November 15, 2021, and furthermore in view of Zeng (US20240331443), filed April 1, 2024.
Regarding claim 13, Mandal and Machani disclose the identification method as claimed in claim 11.
Mandal, Machani, and Chen do not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of generation, by the encoding terminal, of a proof of encoding of the proof biometric template from the proof biometric feature, and a step of verification, by the biometric identification terminal, of the encoding proof..
However, in an analogous art, Zeng discloses further comprising a step of generation, by the encoding terminal, of a proof of encoding of the proof biometric template from the proof biometric feature, and a step of verification, by the biometric identification terminal, of the encoding proof (Zeng, paragraph 0049, encoded; paragraph 0061, verification, encoding compared ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeng with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal Machani, and Chen to include further comprising a step of generation, by the encoding terminal, of a proof of encoding of the proof biometric template from the proof biometric feature, and a step of verification, by the biometric identification terminal, of the encoding proof. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of resilience against attacks (Zeng: paragraph 0050).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US20150341349), filed May 23, 2014, in view of Machani.(US9935947), filed December 18, 2015, and Chen (US20240107127), PCT filed November 15, 2021, and furthermore in view of Spalka (US20240005024), filed October 3, 2022.
Regarding claim 14, Mandal, Machani, and Chen disclose the method as claimed in claim 11.
Mandal, Machani, and Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein the comparison step is executed using a data-obfuscation and/or function-obfuscation method.
However, In an analogous art, Spalka discloses wherein the comparison step is executed using a data-obfuscation and/or function-obfuscation method (Spalka, paragraph 0035, obfuscation function, compared; paragraph 0012, data element obfuscation, function, obfuscate, compare data elements in their obfuscated form).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Spalka with the encoding method / encoding terminal/ biometric identification method of Mandal Machani, and Chen to include further comprising a step of generation, by the encoding terminal, of a proof of encoding of the proof biometric template from the proof biometric feature, and a step of verification, by the biometric identification terminal, of the encoding proof. One would have been motivated to provide users with the benefits of obfuscating data while preserving the ordered nature of the data (Spalka: paragraph 0012).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER J MALINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5368. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:30 MTWH.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/W.J.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights