DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 2/19/2026:
The amendments to claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 12 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancelation of claims 9-1 and 13 is acknowledged and accepted.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and 12 recite “refer to authentication history”. It appears that the language should recite “refer to authentication history information” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “perform authentication processing at a plurality of authentication points”. It appears the phrase should be “performing authentication processing at a plurality of authentication points”.
Claims 1 and 12, the limitations drawn to authentication processing via the Internet is in one paragraph and limitations drawn to authentication processing with respect to authentication information acquisition apparatuses are in multiple paragraphs. It is suggested that each limitation drawn to authentication processing via the Internet be in separate paragraphs or the perform authentication processing with respect to the information at the plurality of authentication points/authentication information acquisition apparatuses be in one paragraph for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “perform authentication processing via the Internet by acquiring biological information from a user terminal via the Internet, perform authentication processing using the acquired biological information, and register, in authentication history information, that the authentication processing using the biological information acquired via the Internet is successful”. However, the remainder of the claim is drawn to authentication processing of authentication information from a plurality of authentication points, especially the last limitation “when authenticating a first user at a first authentication point, refer to authentication history of the first user to identify a type of authentication information used in a past successful authentication, and determine, based on the identified type, authentication information required for authentication at the first authentication point”. The claim language fails to show how “registering in the authentication history that the authentication processing using the biological information acquired via the Internet is successful” is related to the rest of the claims. As such, it is not clear how, or if, the limitations drawn to “authentication processing via the Internet by acquiring biological information from a user terminal via the Internet” limitations is related to the remainder of the claims. Please clarify. For example, the “when authenticating a first user at a first authentication point, refer to authentication history of the first user to identify a type of authentication information used in a past successful authentication, and determine, based on the identified type, authentication information required for authentication at the first authentication point” does not appear to be related to the biological information acquired by the Internet. As such, the limitations drawn to “the authentication processing using the biological information acquired via the Internet is successful” appears irrelevant to the claims. Is the successfully authenticated biological information acquired via the Internet in the authentication history information related to, or used with, the authentication information from the authentication points? For example, is the successfully authenticated biological information acquired via the Internet in the authentication history information used to authenticate the first user or used to identify a type of authentication information required for the first authentication point? Please clarify. When the applicant recites “when authenticating a first user at a first authentication point, refer to authentication history of the first user”, does the “authentication history” refer to both the “registering that the authentication processing using the biological information acquired via the Internet is successful” and the “registering that the authentication processing using authentication information acquired by the authentication information acquisition apparatuses is successfully associated with a type of the acquired authentication information”, or refer to either one? If so, the “authentication history” in “refer to authentication history” needs to be clarified such that it encompasses both or either registered information in the authentication history information. Please clarify. The examiner notes that the applicant’s para. [0030], [0031] and [0053], which recites “By the way, a user in which information that the second authentication processing using authentication information of the second type is successful is not registered in authentication history information needs authentication information of the second type in order to pass the first authentication point. However, as described above, the authentication information acquisition apparatus 1 installed at the first authentication point cannot acquire authentication information of the second type (e.g., biological information). As illustrated in Fig. 4, a user in which information that the second authentication processing using authentication information of the second type is successful is not registered in authentication history information can connect the server 200 and his/her user terminal 300 with each other via a communication network 400, and transmit the authentication information of the second type to the server 200. Then, the server 200 performs authentication processing, based on the authentication information of the second type received from the user terminal300.”, implies that performing authentication information of a second type from a user terminal is so that “the user avoids troublesome work that the user goes to another authentication point and performs authentication processing to pass the first authentication point”, thus implying that the use of the authentication processing using information from the user terminal is an alternative/another embodiment than using the authentication points. Applicant’s para [0082] and [0083] implies that if the user fails to pass the first authentication point (user who cannot pass because authentication processing using authentication information of the second type is not successful) operates the user terminal and inputs authentication information into the user terminal, thus implying that the use of the authentication processing using information from the user terminal is used when the authentication point authentication fails. However, para. [0031] of the applicant’s specification recites “As such, if this is what the applicant is trying to imply, the claim language needs to better clarify that the claim language. Regardless, the authentication processing/registering as successful with respect to the information from the user terminal needs to be tied to the remainder of the claim language since it’s not clear as to how it relates to the remainder of the claim language.
It is noted that claims 2-6 recite “authentication history information” and such it is also not clear if this is meant to also encompass using both information from the user terminal via the Internet as well as that from the authentication information acquisition apparatuses. Please clarify.
It is noted that claim 8 is drawn to biological information acquired by the Internet. However claim 8 also fails to link/tie how it is related to the remainder of claim 1, i.e. how it links/ties to/related to the authentication information acquired by the authentication information acquisition apparatuses. Please clarify.
Claims 4-6 recite “a kind of authentication information”. It is unclear what the applicant means by “a kind of authentication information” (emphasis on “a kind”). Please clarify.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 12.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 pm EST.
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, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876