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 . 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.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recites “determining that a stored biometric template…has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of access attempts…” and “determining that a stored biometric template…has not been replaced for less than a second threshold number of access attempts…”. Claim 19 recites “determining that the biometric template has not been replaced for at least a threshold number of access attempts…”. The specification fails to support and explain what is “a first threshold number of access attempts”, “a second threshold number of access attempts” and “a threshold number of access attempts”? How “determining…a stored biometric template…has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of attempts” and “determining…a stored biometric template…has not been replaced for less than a second threshold number of attempts” is being performed.
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in light of their dependency on claims 1, 10 and 19.
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 1-20 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 and 10 recites “determining that a stored biometric template…has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of access attempts…” and “determining that a stored biometric template…has not been replaced for less than a second threshold number of access attempts…”. Claim 19 recites “determining that the biometric template has not been replaced for at least a threshold number of access attempts…”. It is unclear as what is “less than a first threshold number of access attempts”, “less than a second number of access attempts” and “at least a threshold number of access attempt?
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in light of their dependency on claims 1, 10 and 19.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea. Claim 1 for example, recites a method and, therefore, is a process. The claim recites the limitation of: "capturing, in response to presentation of a user credential during a first access attempt to a resource, first biometric data from a user"; “determining that a stored biometric template associated with the user has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of access attempts by the use”; “generating, using the first biometric data, a new biometric template associated with the user”; “replacing the stored biometric template with the new biometric template based on a quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the stored biometric template”; “capturing, in response to presentation of the user credential during a second access attempt to the resource, second biometric data from the user”; “determining that the new biometric template has not been replaced for at least a second threshold number of access attempts by the user (mathematical concept = counting number of times new biometric template has not been replaced)”; “granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to mental process or could be done by human. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by a human. For example, the claim encompasses data from the user”; “determining that the new biometric template has not been replaced for at least a second threshold number of access attempts by the user (mathematical concept = counting number of times new biometric template has not been replaced)”; “granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template (comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template = mathematical concept)”. Thus, the claim could be performed by human when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation appears to be generic computer functions which do not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere "capturing…first biometric data from a user"; “determining that a stored biometric template associated with the user has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of access attempts by the use; “generating…a new biometric template associated with the user”; “replacing the stored biometric template with the new biometric template based on a quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the stored biometric template”; “capturing…second biometric data from the user”; “determining that the new biometric template has not been replaced for at least a second threshold number of access attempts by the user”; “granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template” is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claim 10 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 do not cure the deficiency of the independent claims and are directed to abstract idea when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “capturing…third biometric data from the user”; “generating…a third biometric template associated with the user”; “deleting the third biometric template based on the quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the third biometric template” of claim 2 which could be performed by human. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 2 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “incrementing, based on deleting the third biometric template, a stability counter associated with the new biometric template” of claim 3 which directed to mathematical concept abstract idea. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 3 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “wherein comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template comprises generating a second biometric template and comparing the second biometric template to the new biometric template using a matching algorithm” of claim 4 which could be performed by human. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 4 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “granting the first access attempt to the resource based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential” of claim 5 which could be performed by human. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 5 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “wherein granting the second access attempt does not include verifying an identity of the user using the user credential” of claim 6 which could be performed by human. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 6 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “wherein granting the second access attempt is further based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential” of claim 7 which could be performed by human. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 7 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “determining, during the second access attempt, that a user identifier of the user credential matches a user identifier of the new biometric template” of claim 8 which could be performed by human. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 8 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “wherein the quality of the new biometric template exceeds the quality of the stored biometric template when a first quality score of the new biometric template is greater than a second quality score of the stored biometric template, wherein the first quality score and the second quality score are based on quality metrics associated with at least one biometric feature of the first biometric data” of claim 9 which directed to mental process and mathematical concept abstract idea. No additional elements are introduced in claim 1 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 9 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 2 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claims 12 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 3 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claims 13 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 4 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4. Claim 13 merely introduced additional element “system” which are simply adding a general‐purpose computer or computer components. Therefore, claim 13 fails integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 5 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5. Claim 14 merely introduced additional element “system” which are simply adding a general‐purpose computer or computer components. Therefore, claim 14 fails integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 6 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6. Claim 15 merely introduced additional element “system” which are simply adding a general‐purpose computer or computer components. Therefore, claim 15 fails integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 7 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7. Claim 16 merely introduced additional element “system” which are simply adding a general‐purpose computer or computer components. Therefore, claim 16 fails integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 8 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8. Claim 17 merely introduced additional element “system” which are simply adding a general‐purpose computer or computer components. Therefore, claim 17 fails integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 9 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Claim 18 merely introduced additional elements “system” which are simply adding a general‐purpose computer or computer components. Therefore, claim 18 fails integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 for example, recites a method and, therefore, is a process. The claim recites the limitation of: "receiving, from a user, a user credential and first biometric data during a first access attempt to a resource"; “granting the first access attempt to the resource based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential”; “generating, using the first biometric data, a biometric template associated with the user”; “determining that the biometric template has not been replaced for at least a threshold number of access attempts by the user”; “receiving, from a user, second biometric data during a second access attempt to a resource”; “granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the biometric template”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to mental process or could be done by human. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by a human. For example, the claim encompasses mental process simply "" receiving, from a user, a user credential and first biometric data during a first access attempt to a resource"; “granting the first access attempt to the resource based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential”; “generating, using the first biometric data, a biometric template associated with the user”; “determining that the biometric template has not been replaced for at least a threshold number of access attempts by the user”; “receiving, from a user, second biometric data during a second access attempt to a resource”; “granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the biometric template”. Thus, the claim recites a mental process or could be done by human when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation appears to be generic computer functions which do not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere "" receiving, from a user, a user credential and first biometric data during a first access attempt to a resource"; “granting the first access attempt to the resource based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential”; “generating, using the first biometric data, a biometric template associated with the user”; “determining that the biometric template has not been replaced for at least a threshold number of access attempts by the user”; “receiving, from a user, second biometric data during a second access attempt to a resource”; “granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the biometric template” is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 merely adds an additional abstract idea, namely “generating, using the second biometric data, a second biometric template associated with the user”; “deleting the second biometric template based on a quality of the biometric template exceeding a quality of the second biometric template” of claim 20 which directed to mental process and mathematical concept abstract idea. No additional elements are introduced in claim 19 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 20 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSO et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2013/0259330 A1) (hereinafter “Russo”), and further in view of Tieu (U. S. PGPub. No. 2017/0372049 A1) (hereinafter “Tieu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Russo teaches:
capturing, in response to presentation of a user credential during a first access attempt to a resource, first biometric data from a user (Russo: [0048], receive from the user another form of user authentication, such as a password (=user credential), another biometric such as a palm, face, eye, voice or a different finger, being imaged…[0052], collecting a subsequent set of biometric object image data for a biometric object image from the biometric object imaging sensor);
determining that a stored biometric template associated with the user has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of access attempts by the user (Russo: [0049], determining the existence of a stability indicator… [0042] In block 62 the system and method 50 can determine whether a stability indicator (=how many times biometric template was stable, in other words it was not changed) is present. As an example where a selected measure of the amount of change does not exceed some threshold (=less than threshold), e.g., for some selected number of biometric object image inputs. [0037], determine that the stored enrollment template is "stable,"(=matched with current biometric data, in other words stored enrollment template is stable, no need to be updated)…)
generating, using the first biometric data, a new biometric template associated with the user (Russo: [0052], comparing biometric image data to a stored enrollment template that may comprise collecting a set of biometric object image data for a biometric object image from a biometric object imaging sensor; storing the biometric object image data in a memory as an enrollment template for further comparison to find a match with subsequently imaged biometric object image data; collecting a subsequent set of biometric object image data for a biometric object image from the biometric object imaging sensor);
replacing the stored biometric template with the new biometric template based on a quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the stored biometric template (Russo: [0052], updating the enrollment template; [0033] Other methods for determining whether the window remains open can be based on spoofing indication metrics, e.g., that measure "instability," e.g., how much new biometric data is being added and/or previously stored old biometric data is being replaced, over time…);
determining that the new biometric template has not been replaced for at least a second threshold number of access attempts by the user (Russo: (Russo: [0049], determining the existence of a stability indicator… [0042] In block 62 the system and method 50 can determine whether a stability indicator (=how many times biometric template was stable, in other words it was not changed) is present. As an example where a selected measure of the amount of change does not exceed some threshold (=less than threshold), e.g., for some selected number of biometric object image inputs. [0037], determine that the stored enrollment template is "stable,"(=matched with current biometric data, in other words stored enrollment template is stable, no need to be updated)…));
Russo does not explicitly disclose:
capturing, in response to presentation of the user credential during a second access attempt to the resource, second biometric data from the user;
and granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template.
However, in an analogous art, Tieu teaches:
capturing, in response to presentation of the user credential during a second access attempt to the resource, second biometric data from the user (Tieu: [0006], acquire a second set of biometric data during a second authentication attempt)
and granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template (Tieu: [0044] In step 308, the method 300 determines if the authentication attempt is successful. As noted, the authentication attempt is successful if a confident match is found between the verification data and the enrollment data (=the biometric enrollment data may include an image of an entire fingerprint or a series of partial fingerprint images.). [0046], a comparison of the second verification data to the enrollment data result in sufficient confidence that a match is exists to authenticate the user)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Russo’s method of update a biometric record when a biometric changes over time when a biometric changes over time by applying Tieu’s method of if the authentication attempt is successful, in order to authenticate the user. The motivation is to detect false rejections and high false rejection rate (“FRR”) and improve user experience (Tieu: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 4, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template comprises generating a second biometric template (Russo: [0071] If a match is not found with the first enrollment template the system and method may include utilizing at least one of a second enrolled template formed (=generating second biometric template) using the first enrolled template the at least one adjunct set of biometric object image data or supplementing the normal biometric object image with the at least one adjunct set of biometric image data to determine if a match exists).
and comparing the second biometric template to the new biometric template using a matching algorithm (Russo: [0044], The system and method 80 can then go on in blocks 98 and 99 to continue to gather sets of biometric image data and compare them for a match to the final stored enrollment template as determined in block 96. Otherwise, the system and method 80 will return to block 86 and continue to update the stored enrollment template)
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 4 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 13.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 11-12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSO et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2013/0259330 A1) (hereinafter “Russo”) in view of Tieu (U. S. PGPub. No. 2017/0372049 A1) (hereinafter “Tieu”); and in further view of SIU et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2020/0257877 A1) (hereinafter “Siu”)
Regarding Claim 2, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above):
Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose:
capturing, in response to presentation of a user credential during a third access attempt to the resource, third biometric data from the user;
generating, using the third biometric data, a third biometric template associated with the user;
and deleting the third biometric template based on the quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the third biometric template.
However, in an analogous art, Siu teaches:
capturing, in response to presentation of a user credential during a third access attempt to the resource, third biometric data from the user (Siu: [0047] At 214, the apparatus may prepare for next fingerprint capture. The apparatus may then loop back to 206 to capture fingerprint. In some embodiments, the apparatus may present a user interface similar to the one shown in FIG. 1B during the operations at 206-216).
generating, using the third biometric data, a third biometric template associated with the user (Siu: [0047] At 214, the apparatus may prepare for next fingerprint capture. The apparatus may then loop back to 206 to capture fingerprint. In some embodiments, the apparatus may present a user interface similar to the one shown in FIG. 1B during the operations at 206-216.[0048] At 218, the apparatus may store registered fingerprint features into a template storage 230. [0040], User, if chooses to, may register more than one finger or the same finger more than once to form one or more reference fingerprint template).
and deleting the third biometric template based on the quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the third biometric template (Siu: [0052], At 303, the apparatus may determine whether the quality of biometric dataset is good. If the quality of biometric dataset is good, the apparatus may proceed to 304. If the quality of biometric dataset is poor, the apparatus may discard the biometric dataset and loop back to 301).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Siu of determining whether the quality of biometric dataset is good and discard the biometric dataset, If the quality of biometric dataset is poor. The motivation is to identifying the same user or different user in order to access customized content provided by service provider (Siu: [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 3, Russo in view of Tieu and Siu teach:
The method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
incrementing, based on deleting the third biometric template, a stability counter associated with the new biometric template (Russo: [0039], In block 20, the enrollment template update count can be incremented and time since the production of the template 1 can be noted and recorded. [0042] In block 62 the system and method 50 can determine whether a stability indicator is present. As an example where a selected measure of the amount of change does not exceed some threshold, e.g., for some selected number of biometric object image inputs. The system and method 50 may then determine how many of such conditions of lack of change have been recorded, and if the number is high enough then a condition of stability can be determined in block 64 and the last most recent update of the stored enrollment template can be considered as the final enrollment template update and become the final stored enrollment template and the system and method goes on in blocks 66 and 68 to continue to gather sets of biometric image data and compare them for a match to the final stored enrollment template as determined in block 64).
Regarding Claim 8, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above). Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Siu discloses,
determining, during the second access attempt, that a user identifier of the user credential matches a user identifier of the new biometric template (Siu: [0061], when a newly available biometric dataset matches a single temporary pseudo-identity 400. The TID (=identifier) 400 is associated with a biometric dataset 401 with minutiae points 410 extracted from a previous fingerprint. Each of newly available biometric datasets 402, 403, 404 matches the biometric dataset 401, thus having a single match with TID 400, as shown in FIGS. 4A, 4B, 4C, respectively).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Siu of determining each of the newly available biometric datasets matches the biometrics datasets matched with TID. The motivation is to identifying the use is same different in order to access customized content provided by service provider. (Siu: [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 2 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 3 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 8 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 17.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSO et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2013/0259330 A1) (hereinafter “Russo”) in view of Tieu (U. S. PGPub. No. 2017/0372049 A1) (hereinafter “Tieu”); and in further view of Bolle et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2005/0229007 A1) (hereinafter “Bolle”)
Regarding Claim 5, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Bolle discloses, granting the first access attempt to the resource based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential (Bolle: [0047], the enrollee enters a secret code (=user credentials) (e.g., secret data previously communicated with the enrollee), if prompted in step 210… the enrollee presents the expected biometric to the biometric enrolling device and, in response to step 225, at step 230 (depending on step 225), the biometric enrolling device compares the presented biometric with the previously stored biometric template. [0048], at step 233, a check is made whether the presented biometric matches the previously recorded biometric template…since the password and/or biometric matches the enrollee is considered authenticated…).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Bolle of entering a secret code that was previously communicated with the enrollee in order to permits multiple attempts to assure acceptable quality in the biometric scans. The motivation is to verification of an individual's identity (Bolle: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 6, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein granting the second access attempt does not include verifying an identity of the user using the user credential
However, in an analogous art, Bolle teach:
wherein granting the second access attempt does not include verifying an identity of the user using the user credential (Bolle: [0032], Determining quality of the measured biometrics at the time of enrollment saves time and permits multiple attempts to assure acceptable quality in the biometric scans. [0033], The invention may automatically acquire the biometric when the quality is improved and becomes sufficient as determined in conjunction with one or both of the capture monitor 150 and quality measurement component 180. Likewise, continued acquisition may be predicated on suitable ongoing quality parameters)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Bolle of saving the time of enrollment and permit multiple attempts by automatically acquiring the biometric when quality is improved. The motivation is to verification of an individual's identity (Bolle: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 7, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein granting the second access attempt is further based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential.
However, in an analogous art, Bolle teach:
wherein granting the second access attempt is further based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential (Bolle: [0048], since the password and/or biometric matches the enrollee is considered authenticated).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Bolle of authenticating the enrollee using the password and/or biometric matches in order to permitting multiple attempts to assure acceptable quality in the biometric scans. The motivation is to verification of an individual's identity (Bolle: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 9, Russo in view of Tieu teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the quality of the new biometric template exceeds the quality of the stored biometric template when a first quality score of the new biometric template is greater than a second quality score of the stored biometric template, wherein the first quality score and the second quality score are based on quality metrics associated with at least one biometric feature of the first biometric data.
However, in an analogous art, Bolle teach:
wherein the quality of the new biometric template exceeds the quality of the stored biometric template when a first quality score of the new biometric template is greater than a second quality score of the stored biometric template (Bolle: [0032], The biometric quality measurement component 180 is a significant advantage over traditional enrollment methods that require the biometric data to be mailed before quality is assessed. Determining quality of the measured biometrics at the time of enrollment saves time and permits multiple attempts to assure acceptable quality in the biometric scans. Since quality is measurable at the time of a biometric scan, the enrollee may be informed immediately of poor quality or unacceptable presentation of the measured body part. In this manner, time and costs are minimized),
wherein the first quality score and the second quality score are based on quality metrics associated with at least one biometric feature of the first biometric data (Bolle: [0049], At optional step 250, the biometric enrolling device may monitor the presentation to check the quality of the biometric…a check is made whether the quality level (=quality score) of the biometric is sufficient, and if not, a new prompt may be issued at step 240).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Bolle of measuring the quality of biometric input at the biometric scan. The motivation is to verification of an individual's identity (Bolle: [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 5 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 6 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 7 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 9 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 10, Russo teaches:
a biometric capture device configured to capture, in response to presentation of a user credential for access to a resource, biometric data from a user (Russo: [0060], the biometric object sensor can, e.g., continuously capture sensed biometric data of the biometric being sensed and ultimately to be imaged and/or compared to a template. This can be utilized, as noted below, to improve the performance and usability of the biometric authentication system and method);
a memory configured to store biometric templates associated with users (Russo: [0070], the system and method may comprise storing the normal biometric object image data in a memory as a first enrolled template for further comparison to find a match with subsequently imaged biometric object image data);
a biometric recognition device configured to generate a biometric template based on captured biometric data (Russo: [0077], In block 210 a process or apparatus for comparing biometric image data to a stored enrollment template may be begun by collecting a set of biometric object image data for a normal biometric object image from a biometric object imaging sensor. In block 212 the normal biometric object image data may be stored in a memory as a first enrolled template for further comparison to find a match with subsequently imaged biometric object image data);
determine that a stored biometric template associated with the user has not been replaced for less than a first threshold number of access attempts by the user (Russo: (Russo: [0049], determining the existence of a stability indicator… [0042] In block 62 the system and method 50 can determine whether a stability indicator (=how many times biometric template was stable, in other words it was not changed) is present. As an example where a selected measure of the amount of change does not exceed some threshold (=less than threshold), e.g., for some selected number of biometric object image inputs. [0037], determine that the stored enrollment template is "stable,"(=matched with current biometric data, in other words stored enrollment template is stable, no need to be updated)…));
replace the stored biometric template with the new biometric template (Russo: [0052], updating the enrollment template) based on a quality of the new biometric template exceeding a quality of the stored biometric template (Russo: [0011] The stability indicator may comprise at least one of a number of times the enrollment template has been updated and a time since the enrollment template was first produced. The stability indicator may comprise a number of successive times that changes to the existing stored enrollment template remain below a selected threshold);
determine that the new biometric template has not been replaced for at least a second threshold number of access attempts by the user (Russo: (Russo: [0049], determining the existence of a stability indicator… [0042] In block 62 the system and method 50 can determine whether a stability indicator (=how many times biometric template was stable/matched, in other words it was not changed) is present. As an example where a selected measure of the amount of change does not exceed some threshold (=less than threshold), e.g., for some selected number of biometric object image inputs. [0037], determine that the stored enrollment template is "stable,"(Examiner’s Note: Stable=matched with current biometric data, in other words determining stored enrollment template is stable, no need to be updated)…));
Russo does not explicitly disclose:
receive, during a second access attempt, second biometric data from the biometric capture device;
and grant the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template;
However, in an analogous art, Tieu teaches:
receive, during a second access attempt, second biometric data from the biometric capture device (Tieu: [0006], acquire a second set of biometric data during a second authentication attempt);
and grant the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the new biometric template (Tieu: [0044] In step 308, the method 300 determines if the authentication attempt is successful. As noted, the authentication attempt is successful if a confident match is found between the verification data and the enrollment data (=the biometric enrollment data may include an image of an entire fingerprint or a series of partial fingerprint images.). [0046], a comparison of the second verification data to the enrollment data result in sufficient confidence that a match is exists to authenticate the user)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Russo’s method of update a biometric record when a biometric changes over time when a biometric changes over time by applying Tieu’s method of if the authentication attempt is successful, in order to authenticate the user. The motivation is to detect false rejections and high false rejection rate (“FRR”) and improve user experience (Tieu: [0003]).
Russo in view of Tieu does not explicitly disclose:
and an enrollment system configured to:
receive, during a first access attempt, first biometric data from the biometric capture device;
generate, using the first biometric data, a new biometric template associated with the user;
However, in an analogous art, Bolle teaches:
and an enrollment system configured to (Bolle: [0049] At step 240, the biometric enrolling device prompts the user for a new biometric to be enrolled):
receive, during a first access attempt, first biometric data from the biometric capture device (Bolle: [0049] At step 240, the biometric enrolling device prompts the user for a new biometric to be enrolled. At step 245, the enrollee presents the desired biometric).
generate, using the first biometric data, a new biometric template associated with the user (Bolle: [0049], [0049] At step 240, the biometric enrolling device prompts the user for a new biometric to be enrolled. At step 245, the enrollee presents the desired biometric. During steps 240 and 245 (optionally, in other steps as well), an output device may be employed to convey the desired biometric….a check is made whether the quality level of the biometric is sufficient, and if not, a new prompt may be issued at step 240);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Bolle of entering a secret code that was previously communicated with the enrollee in order to permits multiple attempts to assure acceptable quality in the biometric scans. The motivation is to verification of an individual's identity (Bolle: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 19, Russo teaches:
generating, using the first biometric data, a biometric template associated with the user (Russo: [0052], comparing biometric image data to a stored enrollment template that may comprise collecting a set of biometric object image data for a biometric object image from a biometric object imaging sensor; storing the biometric object image data in a memory as an enrollment template for further comparison to find a match with subsequently imaged biometric object image data; collecting a subsequent set of biometric object image data for a biometric object image from the biometric object imaging sensor);
determining that the biometric template has not been replaced for at least a threshold number of access attempts by the user (Russo: [0049], determining the existence of a stability indicator… [0042] In block 62 the system and method 50 can determine whether a stability indicator (=how many times biometric template was stable, in other words it was not changed) is present. As an example where a selected measure of the amount of change does not exceed some threshold (=less than threshold), e.g., for some selected number of biometric object image inputs. [0037], determine that the stored enrollment template is "stable,"(=matched with current biometric data, in other words stored enrollment template is stable, no need to be updated)…));;
receiving, from a user, second biometric data during a second access attempt to a resource (Tieu: [0006], acquire a second set of biometric data during a second authentication attempt);
and granting the second access attempt to the resource based on comparing the second biometric data to the biometric template (Tieu: [0044] In step 308, the method 300 determines if the authentication attempt is successful. As noted, the authentication attempt is successful if a confident match is found between the verification data and the enrollment data (=the biometric enrollment data may include an image of an entire fingerprint or a series of partial fingerprint images.). [0046], a comparison of the second verification data to the enrollment data result in sufficient confidence that a match is exists to authenticate the user)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Russo’s method of update a biometric record when a biometric changes over time when a biometric changes over time by applying Tieu’s method of if the authentication attempt is successful, in order to authenticate the user. The motivation is to detect false rejections and high false rejection rate (“FRR”) and improve user experience (Tieu: [0003]).
receiving, from a user, a user credential and first biometric data during a first access attempt to a resource (Bolle: [0047], at step 215 (optional depending on step 210), the enrollee enters a secret code (=user credential) (e.g., secret data previously communicated with the enrollee), if prompted in step 210. At step 220, the biometric enrolling device may prompt the enrollee for a biometric (first biometric data), if a biometric is on record from a previous session, for authentication of the enrollee)
granting the first access attempt to the resource based on verifying an identity of the user using the user credential (Bolle: [0047], the enrollee enters a secret code (=user credentials) (e.g., secret data previously communicated with the enrollee), if prompted in step 210… the enrollee presents the expected biometric to the biometric enrolling device and, in response to step 225, at step 230 (depending on step 225), the biometric enrolling device compares the presented biometric with the previously stored biometric template. [0048], at step 233, a check is made whether the presented biometric matches the previously recorded biometric template…since the password and/or biometric matches the enrollee is considered authenticated…);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Russo in view of Tieu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Bolle of entering a secret code that was previously communicated with the enrollee in order to permits multiple attempts to assure acceptable quality in the biometric scans. The motivation is to verification of an individual's identity (Bolle: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 20, Russo in view of Tieu and Bolle teaches:
The method of claim 19, (see rejection of claim 19 below) further comprising:
generating, using the second biometric data, a second biometric template associated with the user (Russo: [0071] If a match is not found with the first enrollment template the system and method may include utilizing at least one of a second enrolled template formed (=generating second biometric template) using the first enrolled template the at least one adjunct set of biometric object image data or supplementing the normal biometric object image with the at least one adjunct set of biometric image data to determine if a match exists); and deleting the second biometric template based on a quality of the biometric template exceeding a quality of the second biometric template (Siu: [0052], At 303, the apparatus may determine whether the quality of biometric dataset is good. If the quality of biometric dataset is good, the apparatus may proceed to 304. If the quality of biometric dataset is poor, the apparatus may discard the biometric dataset and loop back to 301).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to a disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Shtraym (U. S. PGPub. No. 2017/0374065 A1): A biometric device configured to perform operations associated with biometric characteristics. A non-volatile, non-transitory memory within the device will contain enrolled biometric templates related to a biometric measurable by a biometric sensor. The enrolled biometric templates are associated with at least one predetermined operation the device can perform. In some embodiments, a combination of two or more enrolled biometric templates may be associated with a predetermined activity different from predetermined activities associated with the each enrolled biometric template. One method includes extracting biometric features from biometric data and generating a biometric template. An output signal will be provided based on the predetermined operation associated with an enrolled biometric template matching a generated biometric template. The output signal may be sent to internal components of the biometric device or to a second device over a wired or wireless link.
Stock et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 6,011,858): A programmable memory card is adapted to hold personal information of a user and includes a security feature for verify the true holder of the card. The memory card comprises application file structure for storing and maintaining personal information of a user for one or more applications. The memory card also includes security file structure for restricting access to the personal information in the application file structure. The security file structure comprises a biometric template of a physical characteristic of the user and is configured such that the user's real-time physical characteristic must be matched with the biometric template of the physical characteristic stored in the memory card to verify the true holder of the memory card and gain access to the contents of the application file structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUPALI DHAKAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3743. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights