Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1 - 20 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 19 are independent. File date on 7-10-2025.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 Omum, 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 nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Initially it should be noted that the present application is a continuation application of application 17/964124, now patent 12,388,648 having the same inventive entity. The Assignee in both applications is the same. The entire disclosures of the instant application and the patent are identical.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,388,648. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 12, 19 of the instant application (19/264930) are almost the same as Patent (12,388,648) Claims 1, 11, 18. Claim 1 of the 12,388,648 Patent as shown in the table below contains every element of Claim 1 of the instant application and as such the difference is not enough to distinguish the two claims. Claims 1, 12, 19 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim, if the later claim is unpatentable over the earlier claim.
Application 19/264930
Claim 1
Patent (12,388,648)
Claim 1
“authenticating a user of a brain-computer interface through signals received from the brain-computer interface,”
“authenticating a user of a brain-computer interface through signals received from the brain-computer interface to control the user interface, wherein the authenticating comprises a placement of a virtual object in at least one bay of a group of walls and bays”
“wherein the authenticating is based on an image captured by a camera of the user:
“monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure an integrity of the communications and the user” and “comprising a camera and a machine learning algorithm, wherein the operations further comprise training the machine learning algorithm of the device to determine from images received by the camera”
“wherein the authenticating comprises a recognition, via a machine learning algorithm, that the user has moved a virtual object in a pattern known to the user”
“authenticating a user of a brain-computer interface through signals received from the brain-computer interface to control the user interface, wherein the authenticating comprises a placement of a virtual object in at least one bay of a group of walls and bays” and “presenting the virtual object to the user through the user interface and receiving the signals from the brain-computer interface to control movement of the virtual object
“based on the authenticating, permitting the user to operate a target computer system by the brain-computer interface”
“authenticating a user of a brain-computer interface through signals received from the brain-computer interface to control the user interface, wherein the authenticating comprises a placement of a virtual object in at least one bay of a group of walls and bays”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasser et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210294884) in view of Chevillet et al. (US Patent No. 11,301,044).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, 19, Lasser discloses a device and a non-transitory, machine-readable medium and a method, comprising:
a) a processing system including a processor; and b) a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, (Lasser ¶ 012, ll 11-16: the computer is configured for generating an authorization request containing the neural data, and the authentication processor is configured for acquiring the authorization request containing the neural data from the computer, and authenticating the subject based on the acquired authorization request; (computer indicates a processor coupled to a memory for execution performing indicated operations to perform indicated functions)), the operations comprising:
c) authenticating a user of a brain-computer interface through signals received from the brain-computer interface, (Lasser ¶ 010, ll 1-14: an authentication system comprises a brain-computer interface (BCI) configured for detecting neural activity in a brain of a subject in response to the subject performing a repeatable mental task, and outputting neural data (which may comprise a plurality of neural data samples) representative of the detected neural activity; the BCI comprises at least one detector configured for detecting energy from the brain of the user, and processing circuitry configured for identifying the neural activity in response to detecting the energy from the brain of the user; ¶ 012, ll 11-16: the computer is configured for generating an authorization request containing the neural data, and the authentication processor is configured for acquiring the authorization request containing the neural data from the computer, and authenticating the subject based on the acquired authorization request) and
d) based on the authenticating, permitting the user to operate a target computer system by the brain-computer interface. (Lasser ¶ 041, ll 1-14: The secure enclave analyzes the neural data (e.g., the NFTs) sent by the computer to positively identify the subject, and upon such positive identification, sends an authentication token response back to the computer; (token enabling access))
Furthermore, Lasser discloses wherein for c) the authenticating is based on an image. (Lasser ¶ 004: Authentication credentials used to verify the physiological inherence factor may include fingerprint, face recognition, DNA prints, palm prints, hand geometry, iris recognition, retinal scans, vein pattern recognition, etc., while authentication credentials used to verify the behavioral inherence factor may include typing rhythm, dynamic signature, walking gait, voiceprints, and eye movement patterns, etc.).
Lasser does not explicitly disclose for c) images captured by a camera.
However, Chevillet discloses wherein for c) images captured by a camera of the user. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63: system can monitor, by way of cameras of camera subsystem, objects that the user is interacting with in his/her environment by generating and analyzing images ... ,)
Furthermore, Lasser discloses wherein for c) authenticating comprises a recognition, via a machine learning algorithm, performing actions in a pattern known to the user. (Lasser ¶ 010, ll 1-14: an authentication system comprises a brain-computer interface (BCI) configured for detecting neural activity in a brain of a subject in response to the subject performing a repeatable mental task (predefined pattern), and outputting neural data (which may comprise a plurality of neural data samples) representative of the detected neural activity; the BCI comprises at least one detector configured for detecting energy from the brain of the user, and processing circuitry configured for identifying the neural activity in response to detecting the energy from the brain of the user; ¶ 012, ll 11-16: the computer is configured for generating an authorization request containing the neural data, and the authentication processor is configured for acquiring the authorization request containing the neural data from the computer, and authenticating the subject based on the acquired authorization request)
Furthermore, Lasser does not explicitly disclose for c) the user has moved a virtual object.
However, Chevillet discloses wherein for c) the user has moved a virtual object. (Chevillet col 2, ll 50-62: decodes light-derived signals to extract predicted user actions or intents (e.g., commands) in relation to interactions with objects (e.g., virtual objects, physical objects), such that the user can manipulate the objects or otherwise receive assistance without manually interacting with an input device (e.g., touch input device, audio input device, etc.); The decoding architecture thus enables a neural decoding process with a neural signal stream as an input, and provides feedback to the user, where the feedback is used to train the neural decoding algorithm and user behavior)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for c) images captured by a camera, and for c) the user has moved a virtual object as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Furthermore, for Claim 12, Lasser discloses wherein a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations. (Lasser ¶ 012, ll 11-16: the computer is configured for generating an authorization request containing the neural data, and the authentication processor is configured for acquiring the authorization request containing the neural data from the computer, and authenticating the subject based on the acquired authorization request; (computer indicates a processor coupled to a memory for execution performing indicated operations to perform indicated functions))
Regarding Claims 3, 15, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 1 and the non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise:
Lasser does not explicitly disclose for a) presenting the virtual object to user through user interface, and for b) receiving signals from brain-computer interface to control movement of object.
However, Chevillet discloses:
a) presenting the virtual object to the user through a user interface; and b) receiving the signals from the brain-computer interface to control movement of the virtual object. (Chevillet col 2, ll 50-62: decodes light-derived signals to extract predicted user actions or intents (e.g., commands) in relation to interactions with objects (e.g., virtual objects, physical objects), such that the user can manipulate the objects or otherwise receive assistance without manually interacting with an input device (e.g., touch input device, audio input device, etc.); The decoding architecture thus enables a neural decoding process with a neural signal stream as an input, and provides feedback to the user, where the feedback is used to train the neural decoding algorithm and user behavior)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for a) presenting the virtual object to user through user interface, and for b) receiving signals from brain-computer interface to control movement of object as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Regarding Claims 4, 16, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 3 and the non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein authenticating utilizing a predefined pattern. (Lasser ¶ 010, ll 1-14: an authentication system comprises a brain-computer interface (BCI) configured for detecting neural activity in a brain of a subject in response to the subject performing a repeatable mental task (predefined pattern), and outputting neural data (which may comprise a plurality of neural data samples) representative of the detected neural activity; the BCI comprises at least one detector configured for detecting energy from the brain of the user, and processing circuitry configured for identifying the neural activity in response to detecting the energy from the brain of the user; ¶ 012, ll 11-16: the computer is configured for generating an authorization request containing the neural data, and the authentication processor is configured for acquiring the authorization request containing the neural data from the computer, and authenticating the subject based on the acquired authorization request)
Lasser does not explicitly disclose authenticating comprises moving the virtual object displayed by the user interface.
However, Chevillet discloses wherein the authenticating comprises moving the virtual object displayed by the user interface. (Chevillet col 2, ll 50-62: decodes light-derived signals to extract predicted user actions or intents (e.g., commands) in relation to interactions with objects (e.g., virtual objects, physical objects), such that the user can manipulate the objects or otherwise receive assistance without manually interacting with an input device (e.g., touch input device, audio input device, etc.); The decoding architecture thus enables a neural decoding process with a neural signal stream as an input, and provides feedback to the user, where the feedback is used to train the neural decoding algorithm and user behavior)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for authenticating comprises moving virtual object(s) displayed by the user interface as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Regarding Claims 5,17, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 4 and and the non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the predefined pattern is previously established by the user operating the brain-computer interface. (Lasser ¶ 010, ll 1-14: an authentication system comprises a brain-computer interface (BCI) configured for detecting neural activity in a brain of a subject in response to the subject performing a repeatable mental task (predefined pattern), and outputting neural data (which may comprise a plurality of neural data samples) representative of the detected neural activity; the BCI comprises at least one detector configured for detecting energy from the brain of the user, and processing circuitry configured for identifying the neural activity in response to detecting the energy from the brain of the user)
Regarding Claim 7, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: presenting a plurality of virtual objects to the user through the user interface, wherein the authenticating comprises receiving the signals from the brain-computer interface in a predefined sequence. (Lasser ¶ 010, ll 1-14: an authentication system comprises a brain-computer interface (BCI) configured for detecting neural activity in a brain of a subject in response to the subject performing a repeatable mental task (predefined pattern), and outputting neural data (which may comprise a plurality of neural data samples) representative of the detected neural activity; the BCI comprises at least one detector configured for detecting energy from the brain of the user, and processing circuitry configured for identifying the neural activity in response to detecting the energy from the brain of the user)
Lasser does not explicitly disclose a plurality of virtual objects, wherein to choose one or more virtual objects in the plurality of virtual objects.
However, Chevillet discloses a plurality of virtual objects, wherein to choose one or more virtual objects in the plurality of virtual objects, and wherein the one or more virtual objects include the virtual object. (Chevillet col 2, ll 50-62: decodes light-derived signals to extract predicted user actions or intents (e.g., commands) in relation to interactions with objects (e.g., virtual objects, physical objects), such that the user can manipulate the objects or otherwise receive assistance without manually interacting with an input device (e.g., touch input device, audio input device, etc.); The decoding architecture thus enables a neural decoding process with a neural signal stream as an input, and provides feedback to the user, where the feedback is used to train the neural decoding algorithm and user behavior)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for a plurality of virtual objects, wherein to choose one or more virtual objects in the plurality of virtual objects as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Regarding Claim 9, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 1.
Lasser does not explicitly for a) monitoring user to ensure an integrity of user, and for b) monitoring of user comprises monitoring biological signs.
However, Chevillet discloses the operations further comprising:
a) monitoring the user to ensure an integrity of the user, and for b) wherein the monitoring of the user comprises monitoring biological signs. (Chervillet col 24, ll 55-63: the camera subsystem can cooperate with other portions of the system described above, in applications where capturing interactions of the user with the environment of the user can be combined with decoded brain activity of the user in a useful manner; the system can monitor, by way of cameras of the camera subsystem, objects that the user is interacting with in his/her environment by generating and analyzing images of eye motion of the user, head motion of the user, gaze of the user, and/or line-of-sight to objects in the user's environment, decode an intention of the user from brain activity of the user acquired through the detector subsystem described above, and apply the intention as an input to control an operational state of the object)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for a) monitoring user to ensure an integrity of user, and for b) monitoring of user comprises monitoring biological signs as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Regarding Claim 10, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 9.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose biological signs comprise eye dilation, body movement, or a combination thereof.
However, Chevillet discloses wherein the biological signs comprise eye dilation, body movement, or a combination thereof. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63: system can monitor, by way of cameras of camera subsystem, objects that the user is interacting with in his/her environment by generating and analyzing images of eye motion of user, head motion of the user, gaze of the user, and/or line-of-sight to objects in the user's environment, decode an intention of the user from brain activity of user acquired through detector subsystem described above, and apply intention as an input to control an operational state of object)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for biological signs comprise eye dilation, body movement, or a combination thereof as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
6. Claims 2, 8, 13, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasser et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210294884) in view of Chevillet et al. (US Patent No. 11,301,044) and further in view of Park et al. (Patent No. KR 20220081476 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 1.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure integrity of the communications and the user.
However, Chevillet discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
a) monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure an integrity of the communications and the user. (Chervillet col 24, ll 55-63: the camera subsystem can cooperate with other portions of the system described above, in applications where capturing interactions of the user with the environment of the user can be combined with decoded brain activity of the user in a useful manner; the system can monitor, by way of cameras of the camera subsystem, objects that the user is interacting with in his/her environment by generating and analyzing images of eye motion of the user, head motion of the user, gaze of the user, and/or line-of-sight to objects in the user's environment, decode an intention of the user from brain activity of the user acquired through the detector subsystem described above, and apply the intention as an input to control an operational state of the object)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure integrity of the communications and the user as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Lasser does not explicitly disclose for b) user has deviated from being normal and for c) blocking access to target computer system responsive to detecting that user is not normal.
However, Park discloses:
b) detecting, based on the monitoring, that the user has deviated from being normal; and c) blocking, based on the detecting, access to the target computer system. (Park page 2, ll 38-40: Various examples of normal behavior images are stored based on the learned result, and user authentication is stopped when an abnormal behavior image other than the learned normal behavior image is captured; (authentication stopped if user is abnormal; authentication completed if user is normal))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser-Chevillet for user has deviated from being normal and blocking access to target computer system responsive to detecting that user is not normal as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Park for the benefits achieved from a system that enables a determination of normal behavior and abnormal behavior in order for enabling access. (Park page 2, ll 38-40)
Regarding Claims 8, 20, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 19.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose training machine learning algorithm for a determination from images received by camera.
However, Chevillet discloses wherein the operations further comprise: training the machine learning algorithm for a determination from images received by the camera.
(Chervillet col 24, ll 55-63: the camera subsystem can cooperate with other portions of the system described above, in applications where capturing interactions of the user with the environment of the user can be combined with decoded brain activity of the user in a useful manner; the system can monitor, by way of cameras of the camera subsystem, objects that the user is interacting with in his/her environment by generating and analyzing images of eye motion of the user, head motion of the user, gaze of the user, and/or line-of-sight to objects in the user's environment, decode an intention of the user from brain activity of the user acquired through the detector subsystem described above, and apply the intention as an input to control an operational state of the object; col 33, ll 32-39: the representation of the command, provided to the user as the feedback stimulus, can be used in a co-learning process in order to train the user's behavior (e.g., to provide feedback to the user so that the user can tune his/her behaviors to provide signals that are more easily decoded), such that training of the neural decoding model occurs in coordination with training of user behaviors to increase the accuracy of the neural decoding model)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for training machine learning algorithm of device for a determination from images received by camera as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Lasser does not explicitly disclose whether the user is normal.
However, Park discloses wherein while the user is normal. (Park page 2, ll 38-40: Various examples of normal behavior images are stored based on the learned result, and user authentication is stopped when an abnormal behavior image other than the learned normal behavior image is captured; (authentication stopped if user is abnormal; authentication completed if user is normal))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for whether the user is normal as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Park for the benefits achieved from a system that enables a determination of normal behavior and abnormal behavior in order for enabling access. (Park page 2, ll 38-40)
Regarding Claim 13, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose for a) monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure an integrity of the communications and the user.
However, Chervillet discloses wherein the operations further comprise::
a) monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure an integrity of the communications and the user. (Chervillet col 24, ll 55-63: the camera subsystem can cooperate with other portions of the system described above, in applications where capturing interactions of the user with the environment of the user can be combined with decoded brain activity of the user in a useful manner; the system can monitor, by way of cameras of the camera subsystem, objects that the user is interacting with in his/her environment by generating and analyzing images of eye motion of the user, head motion of the user, gaze of the user, and/or line-of-sight to objects in the user's environment, decode an intention of the user from brain activity of the user acquired through the detector subsystem described above, and apply the intention as an input to control an operational state of the object)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser-Garg-Park for a) monitoring the user and communications between the brain-computer interface and the target computer system to ensure an integrity of the communications and the user as taught by Chevillet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Chevillet for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables utilization of a brain computer interface enabling interfacing with an environment. (Chevillet col 24, ll 55-63)
Lasser does not explicitly disclose for b) user has deviated from being normal.
However, Park discloses:
b) detecting, based on the monitoring, that the user has deviated from being normal. (Park page 2, ll 38-40: Various examples of normal behavior images are stored based on the learned result, and user authentication is stopped when an abnormal behavior image other than the learned normal behavior image is captured; (authentication stopped if user is abnormal; authentication completed if user is normal))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for b) user has deviated from being normal as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Park for the benefits achieved from a system that enables a determination of normal behavior and abnormal behavior in order for enabling access. (Park page 2, ll 38-40)
Regarding Claim 14, Lasser-Chevillet-Park discloses the non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 13.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose blocking, based on the detecting, access to the target computer system.
However, Park discloses wherein the operations further comprise: blocking, based on the detecting, access to the target computer system. (Park page 2, ll 38-40: Various examples of normal behavior images are stored based on the learned result, and user authentication is stopped when an abnormal behavior image other than the learned normal behavior image is captured; (authentication stopped if user is abnormal; authentication completed if user is normal))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for blocking, based on the detecting, access to the target computer system as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Park for the benefits achieved from a system that enables a determination of normal behavior and abnormal behavior in order for enabling access. (Park page 2, ll 38-40)
7. Claim 6, 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasser et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210294884) in view of Chevillet et al. (US Patent No. 11,301,044) and further in view of Amado et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190244127).
Regarding Claims 6, 18, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 5 and the non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 15.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose a holographic projector.
However, Amado discloses wherein a holographic projector that presents the virtual object to the user. (Amado ¶ 036, ll 1-12: system includes one or more human-machine interfaces for receiving input stimuli from users or displaying output stimuli to users; human-machine interfaces intended for use with the system include computers, IoT devices, displays, keyboards, tactile screens, smell or taste interfaces, motion interfaces, augmented or virtual reality interfaces, robots and robot-like devices, holographic projectors, and etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for a holographic projector as taught by Amado. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Amado for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system enabling the utilization of a large number of computational components including holographic projectors. (Amado ¶ 036, ll 1-12)
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasser et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210294884) in view of Chevillet et al. (US Patent No. 11,301,044) and further in view of Reidel et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230229797).
Regarding Claim 11, Lasser-Chevillet discloses the device of claim 1.
Lasser does not explicitly disclose a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
However, Riedel discloses wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment. (Riedel ¶ 131, ll 1-19: program components, being executed by a computer or other machine; program components, including routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and the like, refer to code that performs particular tasks, or implements particular abstract data types; invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote-processing devices that are linked through a communications network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lasser for a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment as taught by Riedel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Riedel for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that can additionally operation within a distributed environment. (Riedel ¶ 131, ll 1-19)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyung H Shin whose telephone number is (571)272-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 12pm - 8pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/KYUNG H SHIN/ 9-19-2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights