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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from PCT/JP2021/015265, filed April 13, 2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claim 9 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to claim 1 to include sending a control signal to display alert information overcomes the previous abstract idea rejection because a person skilled in the art cannot manually or mentally send a control signal to cause display of alert information. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6-7, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection, presented in the section below. Applicant argues that the newly added limitation is not taught by the prior art of record, however, the newly presented Katsumitsu reference is used in rejection of the amended limitation of claim 1. Katsumitsu teaches a clock unit that measures the time from when the confirmation request was received from a requester’s terminal to the time the confirmation request is completed by the confirmer and is sent from the confirmer’s terminal in order to determine if the confirmation request is completed within a specified time. One having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine Katsumitsu’s teachings with those of Pointner and Seefeld because doing so would allow for a reliable time-based confirmation system, as recognized by Katsumitsu. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is upheld, and consequently, THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pointner et al. (US 10,728,241 B2) in view of Seefeld et al. (US 2011/017836 A1) further in view of Oda Katsumitsu (JP 2017162000 A, machine translation used herein).
Regarding claim 1, Pointner teaches a confirmation support device comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Pointner, Col. 3, lines 24-29, the computing system typically includes a memory); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Pointner, Col. 3, lines 24-29, the computing system typically includes a memory and one or more processor(s)) to:
acquire a confirmation time, which is the time required for a first confirming person to visually check an image of an identification document to confirm a predetermined confirmation item (Pointner, Col. 7, lines 51-67, validation user interface can include reference image and authentication image, an allotted time value (e.g., to indicated to a reviewer a total or remaining time allotted for review);
determine the risk level regarding the occurrence of a confirmation error by the first confirming person based on the confirmation time (Pointner, Col. 10, lines 23-48, the validation user interface that corresponds to a low risk (e.g., first risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value of 0:20, and in FIG. 5, the validation user interface that corresponds to a medium risk (e.g., second risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value that has been increased to 0:45. In some embodiments, the displayed visual indication includes the altered time allotment 410).
Although Pointner teaches displaying (i.e., alerting) a visual indication of the risk category (Pointner, Col. 11, line 61-66), Pointner does not explicitly teach to “send a control signal to display alert information to a second confirming person based on the risk level when the second confirming person visually checks the image of the identification document to confirm the predetermined confirmation item”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Seefeld teaches that if a risk class is determined as “higher risk” the tool may require a first person to complete the release step, a second person to complete the review step (i.e., first confirming person), and a third person to complete the approval step (i.e., second confirming person) (Seefeld, Para. [0032]). The second individual reviews the risk assessment and due diligence questionnaire, and submits a request for approval to the third individual. The third individual re-evaluates the review results of the second individual, and approves or rejects (Seefeld, Para. [0057]). The network may be any appropriate architecture or system that facilitates communication of signals, data and/or messages between host and user terminals (Seefeld, Para. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pointner with the teachings of Seefeld by including a second confirming person (i.e., third person to complete the approve step) based on the risk level. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for facilitating a more intensive review and approval process when higher risk is present, as recognized by Seefeld. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Although Pointner in view of Seefeld teaches an allotted time value for performing a review (Pointner, Col. 7, lines 51-67), they do not teach acquiring the confirmation time “by measuring a time from a timing at which information to be confirmed is displayed on a terminal device used by the first confirming person for confirmation of the predetermined confirmation item by the first confirming person until a confirmation result is transmitted from the terminal device”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Katsumitsu teaches when the confirmation request is received from the requester’s terminal, the control unit starts measuring time by the clock unit. This allows for the control unit to monitor whether the confirmation request is completed within a specified time (Katsumitsu, Para. [0065]). The confirmation of the transmission content is carried out on the confirming party's terminal 2b and the confirmation result is sent from terminal 2b (Katsumitsu, Para. [0063]) (i.e., measuring a time from when information to be confirmed is displayed to the first confirming person until a confirmation result is transmitted from the terminal device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Pointner in view of Seefeld with the teachings of Katsumitsu by including a clock unit to measure the time from the confirmer receiving the confirmation request to the time the confirmation request is completed and transmitted. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for a reliable confirmation system, as recognized by Katsumitsu. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu teaches the confirmation support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire target person data, which is data about a target person created by the target person, and an image of the identification document (Pointner, Col. 4, lines 40-60, an authentication request includes a reference image 300 (e.g., an image of an identification document for a user 124) (i.e., image of the identification document) and an authentication image 350 (e.g., an image, series of images, and/or video of the user 124 captured by a user device 156, such as a recent “selfie” of the user 124) (i.e., target person data created by the target person));
compare the target person data with the image of the identification document for collation (Pointner, Col. 5, lines 17-27, similarity analysis module 136 compares the reference image 300 (or the portion thereof) and authentication image 350 (or a portion thereof, such as a portion that corresponds to a facial image) to determine whether the reference image 300 and authentication image 350 satisfy one or more similarity requirements (e.g., the age difference between the face in the authentication image 350 and the face in the reference image 300 is not too great);
acquire the confirmation time required for the first confirming person to confirm the predetermined confirmation item by visually comparing the image of the identification document and the target person data (Pointner, Col. 7, lines 51-67, validation user interface can include reference image and authentication image, an allotted time value (e.g., to indicated to a reviewer a total or remaining time allotted for review); and
determine the risk level based on the confirmation time and the result of collation of the target person data with the image of the identification document (Pointner, Col 8, line 64-Col. 9, line 24, a first authentication request that includes an image (e.g., a reference image 300, such as an identification document, and/or an authentication image 350. The device determines (702) a risk value using one or more information factors that correspond to the authentication request (e.g., information that identifies a location (e.g., physical address, city, and/or country) in which the authentication request originated, information that identifies a requester (e.g., an entity that corresponds to requesting device 154 or user device 156), a document type that corresponds to the image (e.g., an identification document type such as a passport, driver's license, credit card, debit card, or facility access card), and/or a channel via which the authentication request was received (e.g., web, mobile application, mobile website, or mobile point-of-sale)). Col. 10, lines 23-48, the validation user interface that corresponds to a low risk (e.g., first risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value of 0:20, and in FIG. 5, the validation user interface that corresponds to a medium risk (e.g., second risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value that has been increased to 0:45. In some embodiments, the displayed visual indication includes the altered time allotment 410).
Regarding claim 3, Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu teaches the confirmation support device according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output the result of identification of the target person according to the result of the collation of the target person data with the image of the identification document when the result of the collation of the target person data with the image of the identification document satisfies a predetermined criterion (Pointner, Col. 8, lines 1-25, visual indicators provided to the reviewer to indicate that the determined risk has increased to the medium risk category can include a background that is altered (e.g., the color and/or pattern of the background 408 of shown for the medium risk category authentication request is different from the background 408 shown for the low risk category authentication request of FIG. 4), an allotted time value 410 that has been altered (e.g., increased from the allotted time value 410 shown for the low risk category authentication request of FIG. 4), and an altered review input region 412 (e.g., in the medium risk category version of the validation user interface 222, multiple input prompts are displayed in review input region 412 for information regarding multiple parameters that are to be checked, whereas in the low risk category version of the validation user interface 222, review input region 412 displayed a prompt for a reviewer to input a match determination), and
output the result of identification of the target person according to the confirmation result by the first and second confirming persons when the result of collation of the target person data with the image of the identification document does not satisfy the predetermined criterion (Seefeld, Para. [0096], a risk assessment completion screen displayed after the originator completes the risk assessment questionnaire and integrity check. Para. [0032], if the risk class is determined as "higher risk", the BPCDD tool may require a first person to complete the release step, a second person to complete the review step, and a third person to complete the approval step).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pointner, Seefeld and Katsumitsu references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 3 is met by Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu.
Regarding claim 4, Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu teaches the confirmation support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire the confirmation time for each of the predetermined confirmation items (Pointner, Col. 10, lines 23-48, the validation user interface that corresponds to a low risk (e.g., first risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value of 0:20, and in FIG. 5, the validation user interface that corresponds to a medium risk (e.g., second risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value that has been increased to 0:45. In some embodiments, the displayed visual indication includes the altered time allotment 410),
calculate the risk level for each of the predetermined confirmation items (Pointner, Col. 10, lines 23-48, the validation user interface that corresponds to a low risk (e.g., first risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value of 0:20, and in FIG. 5, the validation user interface that corresponds to a medium risk (e.g., second risk category) authentication request displays an allotted time value that has been increased to 0:45. In some embodiments, the displayed visual indication includes the altered time allotment 410), and
alert the second confirming person for each of the predetermined confirmation items based on the risk level (Seefeld, Para. [0032], if the risk class is determined as "medium risk", the BPCDD tool may require a first person to complete the release step and a second person to complete the review step and the approval step; and if the risk class is determined as "higher risk", the BPCDD tool may require a first person to complete the release step, a second person to complete the review step, and a third person to complete the approval step).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pointner, Seefeld and Katsumitsu references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 4 is met by Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu.
Regarding claim 5, Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu teaches the confirmation support device according to claim 2, and further teaches wherein the target person data comprises a face image of the target person (Pointner, Col. 4, lines 40-60, an authentication request includes a reference image 300 (e.g., an image of an identification document for a user 124) (i.e., image of the identification document) and an authentication image 350 (e.g., an image, series of images, and/or video of the user 124 captured by a user device 156, such as a recent “selfie” of the user 124) (i.e., target person data created by the target person)).
Regarding claim 6, Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu teaches the confirmation support device according to claim 2, wherein the target person data comprises a character string regarding personal information of the target person (Pointner, Col. 5, lines 28-43, text recognition module performs optical character recognition on detected text in reference image. In some embodiments, text recognition module determines whether detected text in reference image satisfies one or more text validity requirements (e.g., the text font matches a known font for the identification document type, the text kerning matches a known kerning for the identification document type, the text includes a number of characters that matches a known number of characters for the identification document type, and/or the text content matches identification information associated with a user of the identification document.).
Claim 7 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the device recited in Claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Pointner, Seefeld and Katsumitsu references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 8 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Pointner, Seefeld and Katsumitsu references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Pointner, Seefeld and Katsumitsu references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Pointner, Col. 6, lines 8-20, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
Regarding claim 9, Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu teaches the confirmation support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
display the information to be confirmed by the first confirming person on the terminal device used by the first confirming person (Pointner, Col. 7, lines 51-67, Fig. 4 illustrates a validation user interface that can be displayed to facilitate review of authentication information for a first authentication request that has been determined to be a low risk authentication request), and
display information to be confirmed by the second confirming person on a second terminal device used by the second confirming person after the risk level has been determined, regardless of how high the determined risk level (Seefeld, Para. [0046], Regardless of the due diligence level, the person who performs the release function, i.e., the "releaser," may be identified by the originator during the due diligence questionnaire phase, e.g., as discussed below with reference to FIG. 23. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2B, the originator may assign as the releaser anyone having signature authority for the relevant business group (i.e., the business group identified in the key data), such as a local manager (i.e., information to be confirmed (released) by the second confirming person (releaser) regardless of the determined risk level)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Pointner, Seefeld and Katsumitsu references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 9 is met by Pointner in view of Seefeld further in view of Katsumitsu.
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 Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662