DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 6/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections are stated below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting (Obviousness-type)
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent No 11,238,454 (‘454 hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘454 Patent recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application.
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 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 9, 15 and 17 are directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claims 9, 15 and 17 recite a series of steps for biometric authentication, i.e. risk mitigation practice, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claims as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea as indicated below in bold.
9. A processor-implemented method of performing an operation, requested from a first device, at a second device, the method comprising:
receiving, by the second device, biometric information of a user from the first device through a server, the biometric information being sensed by a sensor provided in the first device;
verifying, by the second device, whether the biometric information that is received from the first device matches biometric information of the user that is pre-stored in the second device using an artificial intelligence model; and
transmitting, by the second device, verification information to the first device through the server, wherein the verification information is a verification result generated by the second device, and the verification information indicates whether the sensed biometric information, being transmitted by the first device, is verified by the second device to match biometric information of the user that is pre-stored in the second device,
wherein the verifying comprises updating the artificial intelligence model using a first feature points of the sensed biometric information.
Claims 15 and 17 recite receiving biometric information from a first and second entity and verifying that they both match.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of a first “device” comprising a “sensor”, a second “device”, a “server” and an artificial intelligence model, any known computational model, see at least [91] of the specification, in claims 9, 15 and 17, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 9, 15 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of sensing, receiving, verifying and transmitting. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs [20], [0034-0035], [91] and [121-123], of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The artificial intelligence model is merely an iterative algorithm programmed on a processor for producing values that are used by the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 9, 15 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 9, 15 and 17 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claims 9, 15 and 17, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of biometric authentication, i.e. risk mitigation practice, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 10-14, 16 and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claim 10 further refines the abstract idea by reciting receiving one or more pieces of biometric information with no technical implementation details such that it is anything more than what is known in the art. Claim 11 recites the additional element of decrypting information received via a predetermined scheme at a very high level of generality. This can be any known scheme and is not an inventive concept. Claims 12 and 13 merely recite transmitting identification data over any type of generic network between two generic devices. The type of data does not make this abstract concept any less abstract. Transmission of data is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional computing activity. Claim 14 further refines the abstract idea by reciting that the information is transmitted without being stored which claimed at a very high level of generality. Claim 16 merely recites requesting stored data with nothing more. Claim 18 further refines the abstract idea by updating the algorithmic model when the sensed information matched the stored information. This is claimed at a very high level of generality. Claim 19 further refines the abstract idea by determining whether to update the algorithmic model based on a difference between data/information sets. This can be completed through mental observation but for the recitation of generic computing elements. Claim 20 merely recites that the updating of the model is performed by continual learning model. These are additional elements that are well understood and can be any type of known learning method programmed on a processor.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for biometric authentication, i.e. risk mitigation practice) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for biometric authentication, i.e. risk mitigation practice) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights