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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Prior rejection of the recited non-statutory subject matter is withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
i. Claims 1 – 7, 10 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson et al. (10,831,922; hereinafter Paterson; cited in Applicant’s 2 September 2025 IDS) in view of Croxford et al. (2022/0129534; hereinafter Croxford; cited in Applicant’s 2 September 2025 IDS) in view of Steiner et al. (2015/0338917; hereinafter Steiner; cited in Applicant’s 2 September 2025 IDS; this combination of references hereinafter referred to as PCS).
Regarding claim 1, Paterson discloses a method (col. 1, ll. 15 – 17) comprising:
authenticating, based on data received from a user, an identity of the user (col. 6, ll. 37 – 44);
prompting the user associated with the authenticated identity to imagine a thought password (col. 6, ll. 44 – 51: user is prompted to think about a particular image);
capturing, via a device comprising a plurality of sensors (col. 5, ll. 6 – 9: e.g. EEG electrodes), information indicative of:
an first involuntary signal generated, by the user, in response to being prompted to imagine the thought password (col. 6, l. 65 – col. 7, l. 2: Projection of the target by the user with the aid of the trigger, e.g. during training), and
a second involuntary signal generated, by the user, in response to being prompted to imagine the thought password (col. 7, ll. 2 – 6: Projection of the target by the user without the aid of the trigger1);
determining, based on the first involuntary signal and the second involuntary signal, a combined signal (A degree of matching2 is determined between measured physiological signals3 and those stored {col. 7, ll. 54 – 58} in data structures during training4 {col. 5, ll. 31 – 48}); and
comparing the combined signal to authentication credentials associated with the user (The degree of matching is compared to a threshold degree {col. 7, ll. 54 – 58} for the retrieval of any one among multiple digital objects with which a respective brain pattern is associated {col. 8, ll. 52 – 62}).
Paterson does not explicitly disclose the method wherein captured information is indicative of a voluntary signal, the combined signal based on the involuntary signal and the voluntary signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Croxford discloses a method [0004] of electronic authentication [0002] capturing information indicative of: an involuntary signal generated (Figure 3: Corresponding to 308), by the user, in response to being prompted to imagine the thought password (Corresponding to 304, 310), and a voluntary signal generated (Corresponding to 312), by the user, in response to being prompted to imagine the thought password (Corresponding to 304, 310); determining, based on the involuntary signal (Corresponding to 308) and the voluntary signal (Corresponding to 312), a combined signal (Corresponding to 314; [0048]: In one example embodied as t.sub.1); and comparing the combined signal to authentication credentials associated with the user ([0048]: Comparison of t.sub.1 and A determinative of identity authentication) . The prediction of measurements stands to benefit from reducing the stochastic component of signal variance ([0119], [0120]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified wherein captured information is indicative of a voluntary signal, the combined signal based on the involuntary signal and the voluntary signal, in view of the teaching of Croxford, to reduce the stochastic component of signal variance.
Paterson in view of Croxford does not explicitly disclose the method comprising prompting a user to imagine a first password and prompting the user to imaging a second password.
In the same field of endeavor, Steiner discloses electronic device control using thought [0005] comprising prompting a user to imagine a first password and prompting the user to imaging a second password ([0158]: Following trigger unlock operation, device challenges to think on one out of predefined thoughts {comparable to first password} which upon having been responded to correctly, introduces a next challenge {comparable to second password}). This is among measures implemented to maximize command flexibility [0157].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified as further comprising prompting a user to imagine a first password and prompting the user to imaging a second password, in view of the teaching of Steiner, to maximize command flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, PCS discloses the method of claim 1.
Paterson does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the comparing comprises comparing at least one of: a signal deflection of the involuntary signal, a timing of the signal deflection, or a mu rhythm associated with the involuntary signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Croxford discloses a method [0004] of electronic authentication [0002] wherein the comparing comprises comparing at least one of: a signal deflection of the involuntary signal, a timing of the signal deflection, or a mu rhythm associated with the involuntary signal ([0022]: Deflection in the P300 voltage observed in an EEG signal). The prediction of measurements stands to benefit from reducing the stochastic component of signal variance ([0119], [0120]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified wherein the comparing comprises comparing at least one of: a signal deflection of the involuntary signal, a timing of the signal deflection, or a mu rhythm associated with the involuntary signal, in view of the teaching of Croxford, to reduce the stochastic component of signal variance.
Regarding claim 3, PCS discloses the method of claim 1. Paterson discloses the method wherein the comparing comprises: determining that one or more characteristics associated with the combined signal is associated with the user (Degree of matching between stored physiological signals and measured {col. 7, ll. 54 – 58} brain activity voltage fluctuations of a particular user {col. 5, ll. 6 – 9}).
Regarding claim 4, PCS discloses the method of claim 3.
Paterson does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the one or more characteristics comprises an event-related desynchronization in at least one of: an alpha frequency band, a mu frequency band, a beta frequency band, or a low gamma frequency band.
In the same field of endeavor, Croxford discloses a method [0004] of electronic authentication [0002] wherein the one or more characteristics comprises an event-related desynchronization ([0038]: Determination of lag/lead among captured signals) in at least one of: an alpha frequency band, a mu frequency band, a beta frequency band, or a low gamma frequency band ([0037]: Range of 3.5–75 Hz5). The prediction of measurements stands to benefit from reducing the stochastic component of signal variance ([0119], [0120]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified wherein the one or more characteristics comprises an event-related desynchronization in at least one of: an alpha frequency band, a mu frequency band, a beta frequency band, or a low gamma frequency band, in view of the teaching of Croxford, to reduce the stochastic component of signal variance.
Regarding claim 5, PCS discloses the method of claim 1.
Paterson does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the comparing is performed by a machine learning model, and the comparing causes output of an indication of the authentication credentials by the machine learning model.
In the same field of endeavor, Croxford discloses a method [0004] of electronic authentication [0002] wherein the comparing is performed by a machine learning model ([0075]: Example of fusing by machine learning processor), and the comparing causes output of an indication of the authentication credentials by the machine learning model (Machine learning processor’s additional processes [0075] comprise identity authentication [0076]). The prediction of measurements stands to benefit from reducing the stochastic component of signal variance ([0119], [0120]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified wherein the comparing is performed by a machine learning model, and the comparing causes output of an indication of the authentication credentials by the machine learning model, in view of the teaching of Croxford, to reduce the stochastic component of signal variance.
Regarding claim 6, PCS discloses the method of claim 1. Paterson discloses the method wherein the second password comprises at least one of an image, a movement, a scene, a smell, a taste, or a sound (col. 6, ll. 21 – 24).
Regarding claim 7, PCS discloses the method of claim 1.
Paterson does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the involuntary signal comprises a P300 signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Croxford discloses a method [0004] of electronic authentication [0002] wherein the involuntary signal comprises a P300 signal [0035]. The prediction of measurements stands to benefit from reducing the stochastic component of signal variance ([0119], [0120]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified wherein the involuntary signal comprises a P300 signal, in view of the teaching of Croxford, to reduce the stochastic component of signal variance.
Medium claims 10 – 16 are rejected as reciting limitations similar to those recited in method claims 1 – 7, respectively.
ii. Claims 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCS, as respectively applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Poltorak (2021/0041953) and Yoon (2020/0356647).
Regarding claim 8, PCS discloses the method of claim 1. Paterson discloses the method wherein the device comprises a wearable device (col. 4, l. 65 – col. 5, l. 1).
PCS does not explicitly disclose the method configured to: emphasize one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors based on a shape of a head of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Poltorak ascertains users’ emotional response to context [0002] with a method [0745] configured to: emphasize one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors based on a shape of a head of the user ([1003]: Spatial normalization of activity captured with EEG electrodes whose location differs on the basis of varying head shapes). This is among measures implemented to generate a reliability parameter predicting output accuracy [0960].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified as configured to: emphasize one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors based on a shape of a head of the user, in view of the teaching of Poltorak, to predict output accuracy.
PCS in view of Poltorak does not explicitly disclose the method that is configured to: cause a machine learning model to authenticate the user based on the shape.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon discloses a method [0056] that is configured to: cause a machine learning model [0079] to authenticate [0103] the user based on the shape [0134]. This is among measures implemented to improve the accuracy of future performance [0080].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified as configured to: cause a machine learning model to authenticate the user based on the shape, in view of the teaching of Yoon, to improve the accuracy of future performance.
Medium claim 17 is rejected as reciting limitations similar to those recited in method claim 8.
iii. Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCS, as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Badower et al. (2014/0051044; hereinafter Badower; cited in Applicant’s 2 September 2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 9, PCS discloses the method of claim 1.
PCS does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: determining which one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors to emphasize and deemphasize based on at least one of: how the one or more sensors contact the user, how the one or more sensors capture the involuntary signal and the voluntary signal, or how the one or more sensors avoid noise.
In the same field of endeavor, Badower implements a method of EEG monitoring [0002] further comprising: determining which one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors to emphasize and deemphasize [0193] based on at least one of: how the one or more sensors contact the user, how the one or more sensors capture the involuntary signal and the voluntary signal, or how the one or more sensors avoid noise [0232]. This is among measures implemented to form a more comprehensive picture of brain activity [0185].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Paterson to be modified as further comprising: determining which one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors to emphasize and deemphasize based on at least one of: how the one or more sensors contact the user, how the one or more sensors capture the involuntary signal and the voluntary signal, or how the one or more sensors avoid noise, in view of the teaching of Badower, to form a more comprehensive picture of brain activity.
Medium claim 18 is rejected as reciting limitations similar to those recited in method claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 – 26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the claimed invention is directed toward a method comprising determining which one or more of a plurality of sensors to emphasize and deemphasize, prompting a reaction of a user to presented content and authenticating an identity of the user.
i. Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art fails to singularly or collectively disclose a method comprising: determining, by a device comprising a plurality of sensors, which one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors to emphasize and deemphasize based on how the one or more sensors contact a user, capture an involuntary signal and a voluntary signal, and avoid noise; prompting a reaction of the user to presented content, wherein the reaction of the user comprises a movement password; based on capturing information indicative of the movement password, authenticating an identity of the user; based on authenticating the identity of the user, prompting the user to imagine a thought password; capturing information indicative of: the involuntary signal generated, by the user, based on being prompted to imagine the thought password, and the voluntary signal generated, by the user, in response to being prompted to imagine the thought password, determining, based on the involuntary signal and the voluntary signal, a combined signal; and comparing the combined signal to authentication credentials associated with the user.
Thus, claim 19 is allowed.
ii. Claims 20 – 26 depend from and inherit limitations of claim 19.
Thus, claims 20 – 26 are allowed.
---
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure follows:
Furman et al. (2018/0012009) provides relevant teachings of imagined stimuli ([0043], [0046]) for authentication purposes [0002].
Inquiries
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Midkiff whose telephone number is (571)270-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/AARON MIDKIFF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
1 This passage explicitly communicates that a trigger may be used as a password recovery prompt, when the user is unable to project the target without the aid of the trigger. This is considered an implicit statement that – other than password recovery and the aforementioned training – projection of the target by the user occurs without the aid of the trigger.
2 Said degree of matching is an example of the analogous combined signal.
3 i.e. without the aid of a trigger.
4 i.e. with the aid of a trigger.
5 Overlapping with frequency range described in the instant application [0019].
Prosecution Insights