www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/670,585
`
`08/07/2017
`
`Katsunao TAKAHASHI
`
`20296.0109USW1
`
`1043
`
`53148
`
`759°
`
`04/02/2020
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON RC.
`45 South Seventh Street
`Suite 2700
`
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
`
`CAREY” FORRESTL
`
`ART UNIT
`2491
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/02/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMail@hsml.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/670,585
`Examiner
`FORREST L CAREY
`
`Applicant(s)
`TAKAHASHI, Katsunao
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2491
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/24/2019.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) D This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1—7 and 11 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1 —7 and 11 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 8/7/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20200329
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page2
`
`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.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1-7, 11 are pending. Claims 8-10, 12 are cancelled.
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheller et al (PGPUB
`
`2015/0363582), and further in view of Rosendal et al (PGPUB 2016/0134634).
`
`Regarding Claim 1:
`
`Sheller teaches an electronic device (paragraph 16, system for determining confidence of user
`
`authentication includes a computing device) comprising:
`
`a receiver configured to receive position-dependent information, the position-dependent
`
`information being information depending on a position of the electronic device (paragraph 23, location
`
`sensor embodied as any type of sensor capable of generating data indicative of a location of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page3
`
`computing device; paragraph 23-25, sensors include location and vicinity sensors which receive
`
`information about the current position or location, e.g. GPS sensor, remote sensor, communication
`
`circuits to communicate with remote computing device to determine whether computing device 104
`
`is within predefined distance or range of computing device 102);
`
`a storage in which a table is stored, the table managing the position-dependent information
`
`received by the receiver and authentication information used by a user to log in to the electronic device
`
`while correlating the position-dependent information and the authentication information to each other
`
`(paragraph 33-34, sensor data generated by the sensors 120 is recorded for a known user; recorded
`
`sensor data may be used to train the individual classifiers; one or more classifiers is selected as
`
`individual authentication factors for generating the fused authentication template; paragraph 36, 44,
`
`Fig. 6, fused authentication template table for user n; fused authentication template is generated for
`
`the known user based on the selected sensors and/or classifiers; paragraph 36, each fused
`
`authentication template has an associated fusion function that "fuses" the multiple sensor and/or
`
`classifier data output; for example, a fused authentication template may describe the typical motion
`
`of the computing device 102 when handled by the user, the typical location of the user when
`
`performing a certain function (e.g., calling or searching the Web), or other context characteristic of
`
`the user or computing device 102; the fused authentication template(s) is stored in the fused
`
`template database 220; paragraph 16, authentication may be a current authentication or may have
`
`been performed at some time in the past (e.g., an initial authentication to the computing device 102));
`
`and
`
`a controller that performs operating environment setting of the electronic device (paragraph
`
`30, authentication module 204 is configured to authenticate the user of the computing device 102
`
`based on the sample sensor data received from the sensor aggregation module 202 and one or more
`
`fused authentication templates stored in the fused template database 220), wherein the controller
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page4
`
`compares the position-dependent information received in predetermined timing by the receiver with
`
`the position-dependent information corresponding to the authentication information about the user
`
`who is currently logged in to the electronic device in pieces of position-dependent information managed
`
`by the table (paragraph 26, any single piece of sensor data may be used to authenticate the user (i.e.
`
`sensor data is therefore authentication information about the user who is currently logged in), similar
`
`to a single traditional active authentication process (e.g., the entering of a password); to improve the
`
`level of confidence of authentication, multiple sensor data (e.g., from multiple sensors) are used by
`
`the computing device 102 to passively authenticate the user on a continuous, continual, and/or
`
`periodic basis (i.e. predetermined timing); motion data indicative of the current orientation of the
`
`computing device 102, location data indicative of the current location of the computing device 102,
`
`and/or vicinity data indicative of the proximity of another computing device while the user is
`
`interacting with the computing device 102 may be used in combination to passively authenticate the
`
`user (any of location data, motion data, or vicinity data may be seen as position-dependent
`
`information); paragraph 37-38, computing device periodically (i.e. at regular intervals, or
`
`"predetermined timing") samples the sensors at reference sample rate; classifiers trained by prior
`
`sample data are applied to one or more sensor data depending on classifiers used; paragraph 44, Fig.
`
`6, result of each classifier is determined and fused to arrive at final fused result for user
`
`authentication using fused authentication table (therefore, at least one position-dependent
`
`information such as the sampled location data classifier is correlated to authentication information
`
`from any other classifier, such as vicinity classifier, and applied to newly sampled data to determine
`
`authentication result); such authentication may occur periodically based on sensor sample rate;
`
`therefore, table manages the comparison in pieces of position-dependent information (e.g. classifiers,
`
`samples, and authentication results), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page5
`
`changes the operating environment setting of the electronic device according to a comparison
`
`result (paragraph 57, if the user is determined to be authenticated, computing device determines
`
`whether the authentication confidence is less than a threshold amount; if so, a security action is
`
`performed, such as active user authentication action; security actions include locking the user from
`
`the computing device, locking an application, requiring user to actively authenticate, etc.),
`
`wherein when the table manages a plurality of the pieces of position-dependent information for
`
`each user (paragraph 29, sensor aggregation module 202 includes a sensor data classifier 210 to
`
`aggregate the sensor data, or a subset thereof, and generate classifier output data based thereon;
`
`paragraph 22-23, motion and location sensors generate information on orientation (Le. a type of
`
`position-dependent information) and location of computing device (i.e. another type of position
`
`dependent information); paragraph 44, classifiers combined into fusion function represented by
`
`table), the controller determines whether a ratio of match between the plurality of pieces of position-
`
`dependent information received in the predetermined timing and the authentication information about
`
`the user who is currently logged in to the electronic device in the pieces of position-dependent
`
`information managed by the table is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (paragraph 30,
`
`authentication module 204 is configured to authenticate the user of the computing device 102 based
`
`on the sample sensor data received from the sensor aggregation module 202 and one or more fused
`
`authentication templates stored in the fused template database 220; paragraph 40, output of each
`
`authentication factor (i.e. classifier) is determined and results are fused; paragraph 44, fusion result
`
`provides indication whether user is authenticated; paragraph 50, authentication module of computing
`
`device determines authentication confidence which provides indication of probability that given user
`
`is at the computing device, given that the system has identified the user; paragraph 57, authentication
`
`confidence compared against a threshold), and changes the operating environment setting of the
`
`electronic device according to a determination result (paragraph 57, if the user is determined to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page6
`
`authenticated, computing device determines whether the authentication confidence is less than a
`
`threshold amount; if so, a security action is performed, such as active user authentication action;
`
`security actions include locking the user from the computing device, locking an application, requiring
`
`user to actively authenticate, etc.), and
`
`changes the operating environment setting of the electronic device according to a result of the
`
`determination (paragraph 57, if the user is determined to be authenticated, computing device
`
`determines whether the authentication confidence is less than a threshold amount; if so, a security
`
`action is performed, such as active user authentication action; security actions include locking the user
`
`from the computing device, locking an application, requiring user to actively authenticate, etc.).
`
`Sheller does not explicitly teach wherein the position-dependent information is identification
`
`information about an access point having a predetermined radio communication system, and
`
`wherein the identification information about the access point is Service Set Identifiers.
`
`However, Rosendal teaches the concept wherein position-dependent information is
`
`identification information about an access point having a predetermined radio communication system
`
`(paragraph 8, method for authenticating comprising receiving at least one data item of contextual
`
`information indicative of a property of an environment of a wireless communications device
`
`associated with user authentication information; paragraph 19, contextual information may comprise
`
`a service set identifier (SSID) or other suitable identifier of a wireless local network to which the
`
`wireless communications device is connected, one or more service set identifiers or other suitable
`
`identifiers of one or more wireless local networks detected by the wireless communications device
`
`within a proximity of the wireless communications device; paragraph 90, contextual information
`
`comprises data that identifies the current environment of the wireless communications device during
`
`login attempt), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page7
`
`wherein the identification information about the access point is Service Set Identifiers
`
`(paragraph 19, 90, contextual information may comprise a service set identifier (SSID) or other
`
`suitable identifier of a wireless local network to which the wireless communications device is
`
`connected).
`
`It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to combine the SSID contextual information teachings of Rosendal with the
`
`location-based authentication and environment setting teachings of Sheller, in order to utilize a
`
`common means of positioning devices based on typically fixed-position networking equipment to allow
`
`devices which do not possess other means of position determination (e.g. GPS) to locate themselves in
`
`an environment, or to save processing time and efficiency which would otherwise be wasted on a
`
`precise geographical determination, thereby allowing a wider range of devices to rely on location-aware
`
`authentication methods.
`
`Regarding Claim 2:
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
`
`In addition,
`
`Sheller teaches wherein the operating environment setting performed by the controller includes setting
`
`of a function usable by the user who is currently logged in to the electronic device (paragraph 57, if
`
`authentication confidence is less than a threshold amount, computing device performs security action
`
`such as locking an application).
`
`Regarding Claim 4:
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
`
`In addition,
`
`Sheller teaches wherein the table manages all the pieces of position-dependent information (paragraph
`
`29, sensor aggregation module 202 may be configured to continuously, continually, and/or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Pages
`
`periodically sample or otherwise retrieve the sensor data from the sensors 120; aggregated sensor
`
`data used to generate classifier output data; paragraph 44, classifiers used for fusion function table to
`
`determine authentication based on sensor data), which are received since the user logs in to the
`
`electronic device until the user logs out from the electronic device (paragraph 16, computing device 102
`
`is configured to continuously or continually determine a level of authentication confidence of an
`
`authentication of a user of the computing device 102; authentication is initial authentication to
`
`computing device; authentication confidence determined continuously, continually, or periodically,
`
`which allows authentication system to passively and continually authenticate user; therefore,
`
`sampling of sensor data and management of data using table occurs from first authentication until
`
`termination).
`
`Regarding Claim 6:
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 4.
`
`In addition,
`
`Sheller teaches wherein the table further manages the received position-dependent information in each
`
`predetermined time period (paragraph 29, sensor aggregation module 202 may be configured to
`
`continuously, continually, and/or periodically (i.e. predetermined time period) sample or otherwise
`
`retrieve the sensor data from the sensors 120; aggregated sensor data used to generate classifier
`
`output data; paragraph 44, classifiers used for fusion function table to determine authentication
`
`based on sensor data).
`
`Regarding Claim 7:
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
`
`In addition,
`
`Sheller teaches wherein the table manages the position-dependent information received at a
`
`predetermined time point (paragraph 29, sensor aggregation module 202 may be configured to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page9
`
`continuously, continually, and/or periodically (i.e. predetermined time period) sample or otherwise
`
`retrieve the sensor data from the sensors 120; aggregated sensor data used to generate classifier
`
`output data; paragraph 44, classifiers used for fusion function table to determine authentication
`
`based on sensor data).
`
`Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheller in view of Rosendal,
`
`and further in view of Sanjeev (PGPUB 2011/0252464).
`
`Regarding Claim 3:
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
`
`Neither Sheller nor Rosendal explicitly teaches the device further comprising a display wherein
`
`the operating environment setting performed by the controller includes setting of an element displayed
`
`on the display.
`
`However, Sanjeev teaches the concept of a device comprising a display wherein an operating
`
`environment setting performed by a controller includes setting of an element displayed on the display
`
`(abstract, mobile devices provide security based on geographic location; mobile device may
`
`automatically check its current location against geographic information as to the location(s) in which
`
`it is permitted to operate; paragraph 36, warnings, such as that the device is outside its permitted
`
`area of operation and therefore not accessible by the user may be provided as visual warnings on the
`
`display and/or as audible warnings via the speaker).
`
`It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to combine the displayed location warning teachings of Sanjeev with the location-
`
`based authentication and environment setting teachings of Sheller in view of Rosendal, in order to
`
`provide diagnostic information to a user that authentication failure or restrictions were in place,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page10
`
`allowing said user to mitigate the problem by returning to a usable location or requesting a waiver or
`
`similar correction procedure.
`
`Claims 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheller in view of
`
`Rosendal, and further in view of Gum (PGPUB 2010/0175116).
`
`Regarding Claim 5:
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
`
`Neither Sheller nor Rosendal explicitly teaches wherein the table manages the position-
`
`dependent information received on a predetermined day.
`
`However, Gum teaches wherein a table manages position-dependent information received on a
`
`predetermined day (abstract, usage or mobility characteristics of portable electronic device (PED) are
`
`compared with current parameters to determine whether to permit an operation; paragraph 60-62,
`
`usage profile specifies location and calendar information, including day of the week; PED compares
`
`list of APs in usage profile with current AP and measures time of day/week; comparison includes
`
`calendar information relating to when a user is typically expected to be in certain location).
`
`It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to combine the calendar-based location determination teachings of Gum with the
`
`location-based authentication and environment setting teachings of Sheller in view of Rosendal, in order
`
`to improve the accuracy of a user’s location profile by accounting for location changes based on a
`
`predetermined schedule, allowing the system to account for predictable deviations from typical
`
`behavior, improve authentication success, and avoid false negative determinations.
`
`Regarding Claim 11:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page11
`
`Sheller in view of Rosendal teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
`
`Neither Sheller nor Rosendal explicitly teaches wherein, in addition to the determination result,
`
`the controller further determines whether the plurality of pieces of position-dependent information
`
`received in the predetermined timing include the position-dependent information about a connectable
`
`access point, and changes the operating environment setting of the electronic device according to
`
`determination results.
`
`However, Gum teaches the concept wherein, in addition to a determination result, a controller
`
`further determines whether a plurality of pieces of position-dependent information received in a
`
`predetermined timing include position-dependent information about a connectable access point, and
`
`changes an operating environment setting of an electronic device according to determination results
`
`(paragraph 47, Table 1, positioning technique includes identifying IP address of local access point (AP);
`
`paragraph 62, portable electronic device (PED) compares list of APs in usage profile with current AP to
`
`which PED is connected to or within range of; paragraph 68, after the user is logged on, the PED
`
`determines its position; the position of the PED can be determined in different ways, e.g. a confidence
`
`level that the PED is located within a given geographic range can be determined, a GPS or SPS
`
`estimate can be determined, a list of available access points or base stations can be used to
`
`approximate a position of the PED, etc.; the PED compares the determined location of the PED with
`
`each user-defined mobility characteristic; if the mobility characteristic includes a non-location
`
`attribute such as time of day, this attribute may also be measured by the PED and used in the
`
`comparison; the PED determines whether the comparison results in a match; if the comparison is
`
`determined to have resulted in a match, the context associated with the matching mobility
`
`characteristic is launched at the PED).
`
`It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to combine the access point identification teachings of Gum with the location-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page12
`
`based authentication and environment setting teachings of Sheller in view of Rosendal, in order to
`
`utilize a common means of positioning devices based on typically fixed-position networking equipment
`
`to allow devices which do not possess other means of position determination (e.g. GPS) to locate
`
`themselves in an environment, or to save processing time and efficiency which would otherwise be
`
`wasted on a precise geographical determination, thereby allowing a wider range of devices to rely on
`
`location-aware authentication methods and to improve user convenience by automatically configuring a
`
`device context in a preset location.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2019 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Regarding the interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112(f):
`
`Applicant’s amendments, including changing ”obtainment unit” to ”receiver” in claim 1, have
`
`rendered the prior interpretation moot. Therefore, the interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112(f) is
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102/103:
`
`Applicant has amended claim 1, previously rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by
`
`Shellar, to incorporate features of claim 12, which was rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Sheller in view of Gum. Therefore, this response will address the arguments presented regarding
`
`the 35 USC 103 rejection.
`
`Applicant’s arguments: The rejection relied on paragraph [0023] of Sheller as disclosing location
`
`sensor capable of generating data indicative of a location of the computer device. See page 4 of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page13
`
`Office Action. In rejecting claim 9, the rejection further relied on paragraphs [0022] and [0023] of Sheller
`
`and contended that the orientation and location of the computer device are types of position-
`
`dependent information. See page 9 of the Office Action.
`
`The Office Action acknowledged that Sheller does not teach or suggest that the position-
`
`dependent information is identification information about an access point. See page 14 of the Office
`
`Action regarding previous claim 12. The rejection relied on Gum as disclosing identifying IP address of
`
`local access point. See page 14 of the Office Action.
`
`However, since the Office Action interpreted the orientation and location of the computer
`
`device of Sheller as types of position-dependent information, it would be improper to interpret the
`
`orientation and location of the computer device in Sheller (the alleged position-dependent information)
`
`to be the IP address of local access point in Gum (the alleged identification information about an access
`
`point). Thus, Sheller and Gum, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest that the position-
`
`dependent information is identification information about an access point, as required by claim 1.
`
`In addition, Sheller and Gum, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest that the
`
`identification information about the access point is Service Set Identifiers, as required by claim 1.
`
`Examiner’s response: However, orientation and location of the computer device of Sheller is
`
`only one type of position-dependent information recited by Sheller as an example. Further examples
`
`given include vicinity data obtained from communicating with remote computing devices to obtain
`
`information about the devices in the local environment and distance from neighboring devices (e.g.
`
`paragraph 23-25). This is compatible with the system of Gum which obtains access point information to
`
`determine position-dependent information. Therefore, what is missing from Sheller and Gum is that the
`
`identification information about the access points is Service Set Identifiers. However, a new ground(s)
`
`for rejection is provided above which does teach this additional subject matter, added by amendment.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page14
`
`Applicant’s arguments: Furthermore, the rejection relied on paragraphs [0033] and [0034] of
`
`Sheller as disclosing that the sensor data is recorded for a known user, and that the fused authentication
`
`template is stored in the fused template database 220. See page 4 of the Office Action. However, Sheller
`
`does not teach or suggest that the sensor data is recorded in the fused template database. As such,
`
`Sheller does not teach or suggest a table that manages both the position-dependent information and
`
`authentication information, as required by claim 1. Gum does not remedy the deficiencies of Sheller
`
`relative to claim 1.
`
`Therefore, claim 1 is patentable for at least the foregoing reasons.
`
`Examiner’s response: Examiner notes that the claim does not require that the position
`
`dependent data is recorded in the table, only that it is ”managed”. This could refer to averaging or
`
`determining a template. Further, Sheller does teach that the sensor data is recorded, and used to
`
`develop the fused authentication template (paragraph 36, fused authentication template has associated
`
`fusion function that fuses multiple sensor and/or classifier data output). Therefore, the fused
`
`authentication template table for a user manages position-dependent information and authentication
`
`information (e.g. paragraph 36, 44, Fig. 6).
`
`Applicant further argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to depending on an
`
`allowable independent claim. However, as shown above, the independent claims are not allowable.
`
`Conclusion
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/670,585
`Art Unit22491
`
`Page15
`
`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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to FORREST L CAREY whose telephone number is (571)270-7814. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached on 9:00AM-5:30PM M-F.
`
`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,
`
`Ashok Patel can be reached on 5712723972. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
`
`from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications