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
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges amendments made to claims 1, 4-7, 11-16, and 19-20. The Examiner acknowledges cancellation of claim 3. The Examiner further acknowledges newly added claims 21-22.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s statements about the applicant initiated interview held on 06/03/2026.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4-7, 11-16, and 19-20 as well as cancellation of claim 3. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections to the claims due to amendments to the claims and cancellation of claim 3.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 10 paragraph 8), that the claims are directed to an improvement to computing technology. The Examiner respectfully points out that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), 2106.05(a).
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 1), seemingly arguing that even assuming for the sake of argument that the claims are directed to mathematical calculations, the applicant’s application is directed to an improvement in computing technology using real number data. The Examiner respectfully points out that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), 2106.05(a).
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 2), seemingly arguing that the independent claims are amended to recite real world application of use/application of the mathematical concepts. The Examiner respectfully points out that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully points out that use of the abstract idea in a real world application is not a part of the Alice framework in determining whether or not a claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, the amendments to independent claims 1, 12, and 16 do not recite any new additional elements, and merely recite further mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the amendments to independent claim 7 recite further additional elements of “by a communication interface” which is merely generally linking to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h) and a “processor”, which is merely reciting a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(I)(A)(i), 2106.05(f).
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 3), seemingly arguing that the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons referenced above in combination with the reasons given in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/17/2026.
35 U.S.C. 102
The Examiner acknowledges amendments to claim 1, and claim 12 incorporating features which were indicated, in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/17/2026, as containing allowable subject matter. The 102 rejections made regarding claims 1, 6 and 12 are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
Allowable subject matter
Applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 3), that claims 2-5 and 13-14 are merely objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 2-5, and 13-14 were not only dependent upon rejected base claims, but also were rejected themselves due to 112(b) and 101 rejections. The Examiner has acknowledged, (as referenced above), amendments to the claims and thus 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, however the 101 rejections remain.
Applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 4), that independent claims 7, and 16 are patentable over the cited prior art for reasons similar to claim 1. The Examiner respectfully points out that claim 7 recites similar features indicated as allowable subject matter over the prior art, but claim 16 contains no such features that were indicated as allowable subject matter over the prior art. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that the 101 rejections for claims 1-20, which includes independent claims 7 and 16, and their respective dependent claims remain.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 appears to contain a grammatical error and should be changed to: “receiving, by a communication interface, a real number data vector”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including a mental processes and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mental processes and mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
A data processing method comprising: selecting, as a codeword, a vector from among a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising multiple elements and having a predetermined size; generating, a helper matrix by using the codeword and a real number data vector comprising a plurality of real number elements; the helper matrix; and performing user authentication using the codeword, wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value on a surface of a sphere to a different position on the surface of the sphere.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements regarding a “processor”, “selecting, by at least one processor”, “generating, by the at least one processor”, “outputting, by the at least one processor”. The recited additional elements regarding the “processor” is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For this reasons, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, claim 1 the additional elements regarding the “processor”, “selecting, by at least one processor”, “generating, by the at least one processor”, “outputting, by the at least one processor” are merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding what the courts have found to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. For these reasons, claim 1 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, a mental process. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mental process:
wherein a predetermined number of elements of the multiple elements of the vector in the predetermined size have a same value other than zero, wherein the vector includes 512 elements, and wherein 16 elements of the 512 elements have a value of ±1/4.
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 4 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
wherein the generating the helper matrix comprises: selecting a random orthogonal matrix for moving the real number data vector in a random direction; calculating a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the real number data vector; and calculating the helper matrix by using the real number data vector, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4. Claim 5 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 4.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
wherein the calculating the rotation matrix comprises: calculating first intermediate data by matrix- multiplying the random orthogonal matrix by the real number data vector; generating second intermediate data by performing unit orthogonalization processing on the codeword and the first intermediate data; calculating a rotation angle between the codeword and the first intermediate data; and generating the rotation matrix by using the rotation angle, the first intermediate data, and the second intermediate data.
Claim 5 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 6 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mental process. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mental process of observation:
wherein the real number data vector is at least one of.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 6 recites additional elements of, “face information data, voice information data, or location information data”. These additional element are merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv). The Examiner further notes that the recited “face information data, voice information data, or location information data” are merely descriptions of the characteristics of data used in the mathematical calculations. For these reasons, claim 6 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 21 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 21 recites an abstract idea, including a mental process. Specifically, claim 21 recites the following mental process of observation:
further comprising: generating real number data; and extracting the real number data vector using the generated real number data.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 21 recites additional element of, “sensor”. These additional element are merely generally linking to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv). For these reasons, claim 21 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 7 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 7 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
A data processing method comprising: real number data vector; calculating, by at least one, a vector comprising a plurality of elements, the vector being calculated based on a real number data vector corresponding to the real number data vector and a helper matrix that relatively moves a value on a surface of a sphere to a different position on the surface of the sphere; performing, by the at least one processor, error correction on the vector that is calculated and performing user authentication based on the vector on which the error correction has been performed.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 7 recites the additional elements of “receiving”, “processor”, “communication interface”. The additional element of “receiving” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, conventional activity, MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g), 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The additional element of “processor”, is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and is merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding what the courts have found to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional element of “communication interface” is merely generally linking to a particular technological environment, MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(I)(A)(iv), 2106.05(h). For these reasons, claim 7 is neither integrated into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7. Claim 8 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 7.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following mathematical relationship:
further comprising: determining equality of the vector and a codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix.
Claim 8 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 9 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 8. Claim 9 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 8.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
wherein the determining the equality comprises: calculating a dot product sum of the vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and determining the equality based on whether a size of the dot product sum is smaller than a predetermined size.
Claim 9 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7. Claim 10 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 7.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mathematical calculations:
further comprising: performing error correction on the vector.
Claim 10 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 11 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 11 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 10.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 11 recites the following mathematical formulas:
wherein the performing error correction comprises setting an element value of each of the plurality of elements of the vector to a predetermined value or a zero value.
Claim 11 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding claim 12, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 12 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 recites an abstract idea, including a mental processes and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 12 recites the following mental processes and mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
selects, as a codeword, a vector of a plurality of vectors, the vector comprising -a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size, generates a helper matrix by using the codeword and a real number data vector comprising a plurality of real-number elements, and outputs the helper matrix, and performs user authentication using the codeword, wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value on a surface of a sphere to a different position on the surface of the sphere.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 12 recites additional elements of, “electronic apparatus”, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction” “wherein the processor, by executing the at least one instruction”. The recited “electronic apparatus”, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction” “wherein the processor, by executing the at least one instruction” are merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the recited memory is simply storing instructions for the mathematical concept, and is well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). The recited memory and processor is merely a generic computing device performing generic functions, see MPEP 2106.05(A)(ii), 2106.05(f). For these reasons, claim 12 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Claim 13 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 12.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 13 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
selects a random orthogonal matrix for moving the real number data vector in a random direction, calculates a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the real number data vector, and generates the helper matrix by using the real number data vector, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.
Claim 13 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 14 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 13. Claim 14 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 13.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 14 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
calculates first intermediate data by matrix multiplying the random orthogonal matrix by the real number data vector, generates second intermediate data by performing unit orthogonalization processing on the codeword and the first intermediate data, calculates a rotation angle between the codeword and the first intermediate data, and calculates the rotation matrix by using the rotation angle, the first intermediate data, and the second intermediate data.
Claim 14 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 15 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Claim 15 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 12.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 15 recites the following mental process and mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
based on new real number data being input, calculates a vector comprising a plurality of elements, the vector being calculated based on the new real number data and the helper matrix.
Claim 15 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 22 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Claim 22 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 12.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 22 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 22 recites the following mental process and mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
configured to generate real number data; wherein the processor extracts a real-number data vector using the generated real number data.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 22 recites additional element of, “sensor”. These additional element are merely generally linking to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv). For these reasons, claim 22 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 16, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 16 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 16 recites an abstract idea, including a mental processes and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 16 recites the following mental processes and mathematical calculations:
that senses biometric information and generates first real number data based on the biometric information; and the includes a: select, as a codeword, a first vector of a plurality of vectors, the first vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size; generate a helper matrix by using the codeword and a second real number data vector comprising a plurality of real-number elements; receive the first real number data from the; calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements, the second vector being calculated based on the first real number data and the helper matrix; determine equality of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and performing error correction on the second vector that is calculated and performing user authentication based on the second vector on which the error correction has been performed.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, analysis, claim 16 recites additional elements of, “system comprising an electronic apparatus”, “server”, “electronic apparatus”, “sensor”, “communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server”, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least”. The recited “system comprising an electronic apparatus”, “server”, “electronic apparatus”, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least” is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Memory storing data (instructions), and communications over a network (“communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server”), is insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited “sensor” is merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, MPEP 2106.04(d). For these reasons, claim 16 is not integrated into a practical solution.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, “system comprising an electronic apparatus”, “server”, “electronic apparatus”, “memory that stores at least one instruction”, “processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least” is merely a generic computing device performing generic functions, see MPEP 2106.05(A)(ii), 2106.05(f). Furthermore, memory storing data (instructions), and communications over a network (“communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server”), is insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Furthermore, he recited “sensor” is merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, MPEP 2106.05(A)(iv), 2106.05(h). For these reasons, claim 16 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 17 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 17 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 17 recites the following mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations:
calculating a dot product sum of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and determining the equality based on whether a size of the dot product sum is smaller than a predetermined value.
Claim 17 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 18 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 18 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 18 recites an abstract idea, including a mental process. Specifically, claim 18 recites the following mental process of observation:
wherein the biometric information is at least one of.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 18 recites additional elements of, “face information data, voice information data, or location information data”. These additional element are merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv). The Examiner further notes that the recited “face information data, voice information data, or location information data” are merely descriptions of the characteristics of data used in the mathematical calculations. For these reasons, claim 18 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 19 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 19 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 19 recites the following mental process and mathematical formula:
wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value on a surface of a sphere a different position on the surface of the sphere.
Claim 19 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 20 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 20 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 16.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 20 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 20 recites the following mathematical formula, and mathematical calculation:
wherein the at least one generates the helper matrix by at least: selecting a random orthogonal matrix for moving the second real number data vector in a random direction; calculating a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the second real number data vector; and calculating the helper matrix by using the second real number data vector, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.
Claim 20 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Takeshi et al. (JP 2019050481A), hereinafter, “Takeshi”.
With regards to claim 16, Takeshi teaches:
A system comprising an electronic apparatus and a server, (Fig. 1 item 100 (generation device) as a system; Fig. 2 items 206 (electronic apparatus, sensor device), 100 (generation device), 201 (CPU), 202 (memory), 203 (interface), 204 & 205 (recording medium)); (page 28/50 paragraph 2 regarding generation device as a server));
wherein: the electronic apparatus includes a sensor that senses biometric information (Fig. 2 item 206 (sensor device); (page 30/50 paragraph 10) regarding sensor device 206 acquiring biological data from a user);
and generates first real number data based on the biometric information, (Fig. 1 regarding item 101 (biometric information), and outputting x (real number vector); Fig. 2 item 206 (sensor device); (page 30/50 paragraph 10) regarding sensor device 206 acquiring biological data from a user; (page 31/50 paragraph 4) regarding the biometric information vector x being a real number vector);
and a communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server; (Fig. 2 item 200 (biometric information bus); Fig. 1 regarding item 101 (biometric information));
and the server includes a memory that stores at least one instruction, (Fig. 2 items 202 (memory), 205 (storage medium); Fig. 3 item 300 (storage unit); (page 31/50 paragraph 2) regarding the acquisition unit (301) to the output unit (303) cause the CPU (201) to execute a program stored in a storage area such as memory (202), or recording medium (205));
and at least one processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least: select, as a codeword, a first vector of a plurality of vectors, (Fig. 3 item 300 (storage unit); (page 31/50 paragraph 2) regarding the acquisition unit (301) to the output unit (303) cause the CPU (201) to execute a program stored in a storage area such as memory (202), or recording medium (205); Fig. 1 regarding 'S'; (page 32/50 paragraph 4) regarding the generating apparatus 100 selecting a random number vector S (as a codeword)out of a plurality of vectors (vector W being another vector));
the first vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size; ((page 32/50 paragraph 4) regarding vector S (as a codeword) being a predetermined size of being smaller than vector W);
generate a helper matrix by using the codeword and a second real number data vector comprising a plurality of real-number elements; (Fig. 1 regarding vector W and vector S used to generate vector c (as a helper matrix); (page 32/50 paragraphs 4-5) regarding using vector S (as a codeword) and vector W (as a second real number data vector) used to calculate vector c);
receive the first real number data from the electronic apparatus; (Fig. 1 regarding item 101 (biometric information), and outputting x (real number vector); Fig. 2 item 206 (sensor device), and 200 (communication bus); (page 30/50 paragraph 10) regarding sensor device 206 acquiring biological data from a user);
calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements, the second vector being calculated based on the first real number data and the helper matrix; (Fig. 1 regarding vector x (as a matrix based on the first number data), vector c (as a helper matrix), and vector c' (as a second vector));
determine equality of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; ((page 30/50 paragraph 4) regarding determining if each element of vector c and vector c' match; Fig. 6, 7 regarding Fuzzy error correction, determining equality (by determining difference) between c and c', S and S'; (page 34/50 paragraph 3) regarding determining equality, S-S');
and performing error correction on the second vector that is calculated (Fig. 6 regarding vector c' Fuzzy error correction);
and performing user authentication based on the second vector on which the error correction has been performed. (Fig. 6 regarding verification using vector c'; (page 33/50 paragraph 14) regarding the generating device (100) determines that the modified waters signature is valid by checking that disclosure information (c, g1) matches (c', g1')).
With regards to claim 18, Takeshi teaches the system of claim 16, as referenced above.
Takeshi further teaches:
wherein the biometric information is at least one of face information or voice information. ((page 30/50 paragraph 10) regarding the sensor device (206) acquiring face information).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17, and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-15 and 21-22, the Examiner had previously indicated, in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 02/20/2026, allowable subject matter in claim 3 which has been incorporated into the independent claims 1, 12, and which is also found in independent claim 7. The reasoning for the indication of allowable subject matter in the claims are for substantially the same reasons given in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 02/20/2026.
Regarding claim 17, the applicant claims a system wherein the system of claim 16 comprises:
An electronic apparatus and a server, wherein: the electronic apparatus includes a sensor that senses biometric information and generates first real number data based on the biometric information, and a communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server; and the server includes a memory that stores at least one instruction, and at least one processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least: select, as a codeword, a first vector of a plurality of vectors, the first vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size; generate a helper matrix by using the codeword and a second real number data vector comprising a plurality of real-number elements; receive the first real number data from the electronic apparatus; calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements, the second vector being calculated based on the first real number data and the helper matrix; determine equality of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and performing error correction on the second vector that is calculated and performing user authentication based on the second vector on which the error correction has been performed.
Furthermore, wherein the system of claim 17 comprises:
The system of claim 16, wherein the determining the equality comprises: calculating a dot product sum of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and determining the equality based on whether a size of the dot product sum is smaller than a predetermined value.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant claims a system wherein the system of claim 16 comprises:
An electronic apparatus and a server, wherein: the electronic apparatus includes a sensor that senses biometric information and generates first real number data based on the biometric information, and a communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server; and the server includes a memory that stores at least one instruction, and at least one processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least: select, as a codeword, a first vector of a plurality of vectors, the first vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size; generate a helper matrix by using the codeword and a second real number data vector comprising a plurality of real-number elements; receive the first real number data from the electronic apparatus; calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements, the second vector being calculated based on the first real number data and the helper matrix; determine equality of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and performing error correction on the second vector that is calculated and performing user authentication based on the second vector on which the error correction has been performed.
Furthermore, wherein the system of claim 19 comprises:
The system of claim 16, wherein the helper matrix defines a vector that relatively moves a value on a surface of a sphere a different position on the surface of the sphere.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant claims a system wherein the system of claim 16 comprises:
An electronic apparatus and a server, wherein: the electronic apparatus includes a sensor that senses biometric information and generates first real number data based on the biometric information, and a communication interface that transmits the first real number data to the server; and the server includes a memory that stores at least one instruction, and at least one processor that loads the at least one instruction and executes the at least one instruction to at least: select, as a codeword, a first vector of a plurality of vectors, the first vector comprising a plurality of elements and having a predetermined size; generate a helper matrix by using the codeword and a second real number data vector comprising a plurality of real-number elements; receive the first real number data from the electronic apparatus; calculate a second vector comprising a plurality of elements, the second vector being calculated based on the first real number data and the helper matrix; determine equality of the second vector and the codeword that corresponds to the helper matrix; and performing error correction on the second vector that is calculated and performing user authentication based on the second vector on which the error correction has been performed.
Furthermore, wherein the system of claim 20 comprises:
The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor generates the helper matrix by at least: selecting a random orthogonal matrix for moving the second real number data vector in a random direction; calculating a rotation matrix for rotationally moving the second real number data vector; and calculating the helper matrix by using the second real number data vector, the random orthogonal matrix, and the rotation matrix.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Herder et al. (Patent application publication 2017/0141920 A1) discloses generating a public key (helper matrix) by using biometric data, a binary matrix, and a vector secret number (as a codeword), (fig. 3, fig, 5, [0096]). However, Herder fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above. Herder converts the sensor’s raw biometric data into a digital signal that characterizes the biometric information ([0058]), which includes converting data into a binary form ([0099]). Furthermore, Herder discloses a verification system (Fig. 8), but merely suggests that the executed verification algorithm uses message signing protocol known in the art ([0125]). Furthermore, Herder fails to teach or suggest the helper matrix as a vector that relatively moves a value on a surface of a sphere a different position on the surface of the sphere. Furthermore, Herder fails to teach or suggest generating the helper matrix using a second real number data vector, random orthogonal matrix, and a rotation matrix.
Huh et al. (U.S. Patent application publication 2018/0375859 A1), hereinafter, “Huh” discloses
use of biometric data, and vector-matrix multiplication to generate a matrix, T, (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0049]- [0054]). Huh discloses converting raw biometric data into vectors X, Y ([0044]). Huh further discloses matrix multiplication of the biometric data vector, X, with a random number matrix w, where the elements of vector X and matrix w are real numbers (Fig. 2; [0052]). Huh further discloses methods of authentication (Fig. 2 regarding matrix multiplication performed and matching step; Fig. 3 regarding comparing biometric template T to T’; Figs 4, 5 regarding another authentication method). However, Huh fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Takeshi discloses many of the claimed limitations as referenced above. Takashi discloses a system using a sensor to sense biometric information (Fig. 2 item 206; (page 30/50 paragraph 10) regarding sensor device 206 acquiring biological data from a user). Takeshi further discloses generating a biometric information vector x made up of real number data ((page 31/50 paragraph 4)). Takeshi further discloses selecting a codeword (Fig. 1 regarding ‘S’; (page 32/50 paragraph 4) regarding the generating apparatus 100 selecting a random number vector S (as a code word)). Takeshi further discloses generating a helper matrix by using the codeword and a second real number data vector (Fig. 1 regarding vector W and vector S used to generate vector c (as a helper matrix)). Takeshi further discloses calculating a second vector based on the first real number data and the helper matrix (Fig. 1 regarding vector x (as a matrix based on the first number data), vector c (as a helper matrix), and vector c' (as a second vector)). Takeshi further discloses determining equality, performing error correction, and user authentication (Fig. 6, 7 regarding Fuzzy error correction, determining equality (by determining difference) between c and c', S and S'; Fig. 6 regarding verification using vector c'; (page 33/50 paragraph 14) regarding the generating device (100) determines that the modified waters signature is valid by checking that disclosure information (c, g1) matches (c', g1')). Takeshi further discloses the biometric information being face information ((page 30/50 paragraph 10) regarding the sensor device (206) acquiring face information)). However, Takeshi fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 3:30pm ET.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights