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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
3. The examiner contends that, under the judicial exceptions enumerated in the MPEP § 2106, to determine the patent-eligibility of an application, a two- part analysis has to be conducted.
Part 1: it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
Part 2A: Prong 1: (1) Determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or one of the judicial exceptions. Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. include:
1. Certain method of organizing human activity such as Fundamental Economic Practices, Commercial and Legal Interactions, or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
2. A mental process.
3. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Part 2A: Prong 2: determine if the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Part 2B: determine if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Analysis
4. Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is found that the claim indeed recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process - one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1), using claim 22 as the representative claim, it is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a mental process. For instance, the claim language “a feature determination step of determining whether a feature of the first voice indicated by the received voice information and the feature of the second voice indicated by the acquired requester voice feature
information correspond; a speech determination step of determining whether the first voice indicated by the received voice information represents predetermined information; and a permission determination step of determining, based on the determination in the feature determination step and the determination in the speech determination step, whether to permit the predetermined processing” are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Any steps that can be performed in the human mind fall into the category of mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the examiner contends that the claim recites a combination of additional elements including “a processing information acquisition step of acquiring processing information indicating details of a request for the predetermined processing and including requester identification information for identifying a presumed requester presumed to request the predetermined processing…; a requester voice communication identification information acquisition step of acquiring, based on the requester identification information included in the acquired processing information, requester voice communication identification information for identifying the presumed requester in a voice communication system enabling voice communication; a connection control step of causing, based on the acquired requester voice communication identification information; a voice information reception step of receiving voice information indicating a first voice input…; a requester voice feature information acquisition step of acquiring, based on the requester identification information included in the acquired processing information, requester voice feature information indicating a feature of a second voice of the presumed requester; computer, information processing system and user communication device.” These additional elements, considered in the context of claim 22 as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they simply recite the steps of inputting data and acquiring data using a generic computer system. In other words, these additional limitations are recited functionally without technical or technological details on how, i.e., by what algorithm or on what basis/method, the computer, information processing system and user communication device are caused to perform these steps. The computer, the information processing system and user communication device, with their already available basic functions, are simply being applied to the abstract idea and being used as tools in executing the claimed process. Further, the additional limitations can be reasonably characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, the steps of “a processing information acquisition step of acquiring processing information indicating details of a request for the predetermined processing and including requester identification information for identifying a presumed requester presumed to request the predetermined processing…; a requester voice communication identification information acquisition step of acquiring, based on the requester identification information included in the acquired processing information, requester voice communication identification information for identifying the presumed requester in a voice communication system enabling voice communication; a connection control step of causing, based on the acquired requester voice communication identification information; a voice information reception step of receiving voice information indicating a first voice input…; a requester voice feature information acquisition step of acquiring, based on the requester identification information included in the acquired processing information, requester voice feature information indicating a feature of a second voice of the presumed requester,” when considered as a whole, are mere data gathering steps considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). Further, the limitation “the information processing system to be connected with a user communication device of the presumed requester for the voice communication” is recited to further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. Thus, it is determined that claim 22 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 22 are the generically recited “computer, information processing system and user communication device.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. The specification substantiates this, for instance at paras…... Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Furthermore, the limitations in the dependent claims are thus subject to the same analysis as in claim 22 and are rejected using the same rationale as in claim 22 above. More specifically, dependent claims 3, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, and 18-21 do not recite additional elements but merely further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. However, dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10 recite additional elements, but these additional elements comprise the analyses of data, which is nothing but the automation of mental tasks. See Benson, Bancorp and Cyberphone. Also see Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes”). Lastly, claims 12-13, 16, 17 are mere information gathering steps, which are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goel et al (Goel hereinafter, US PAT: 2025/0005123).
Re claim 1. Goel discloses an information processing system for permitting predetermined processing, the system comprising: a processing information acquisition means that acquires processing information indicating details of a request for the predetermined processing and including requester identification information for identifying a presumed requester presumed to request the predetermined processing as a user who can use the information processing system (see paras 0095, 0150); a requester voice communication identification information acquisition means that acquires, based on the requester identification information included in the acquired processing information, requester voice communication identification information for identifying the presumed requester in a voice communication system enabling voice communication; a connection control means that causes, based on the acquired requester voice communication identification information, the information processing system to be connected with a user communication device of the presumed requester for the voice communication (see theabstract, also see fig.8); a voice information reception means that receives voice information indicating a first voice input in the user communication device from the user communication device connected with the information processing system for the voice communication; a requester voice feature information acquisition means that acquires, based on the requester identification information included in the acquired processing information, requester voice feature information indicating a feature of a second voice of the presumed requester (see the abstract and fig.8); a feature determination means that determines whether a feature of the first voice indicated by the received voice information and the feature of the second voice indicated by the acquired requester voice feature information correspond; a speech determination means that determines whether the first voice indicated by the received voice information represents predetermined information; and a permission determination means that determines, based on the determination by the feature determination means and the determination by the speech determination means, whether to permit the predetermined processing (see fig.8, see paras 0007, 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 2. Goel discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the predetermined information indicates affirmation of the predetermined processing, the first voice indicated by the received voice information represents either the affirmation or negation of the predetermined processing, and the speech determination means determines whether the first voice indicated by the received voice information represents the affirmation or the negation (see fig.8, see paras 0007, 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 3. Goel discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the
predetermined information is authentication information for authenticating the presumed
requester if the presumed requester knows the authentication information (see paras 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 4. Goel discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the permission determination means determines to permit the predetermined processing when the feature of the first voice and the feature of the second voice correspond and the first voice represents the predetermined information (see fig.8 element 812 and 814, also see para 0069 and the abstract).
Re claim 5. Goel discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the permission determination means determines not to permit the predetermined processing when the feature of the first voice and the feature of the second voice correspond and the first voice does not represent the predetermined information (see para 0069).
Re claim 6. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the permission determination means determines not to permit the predetermined processing when the feature of the first voice and the feature of the second voice do not correspond and the first voice represents the predetermined information (see para 0069).
Re claim 7. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 or 2, further comprising a risk degree determination means that determines, based on the acquired processing information, a degree of risk in executing the predetermined processing, the degree of risk changing in accordance with a probability that the predetermined processing is requested by a person different from the presumed requester, wherein when the determined degree is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the connection control means causes the information processing system to be connected with the user communication device, and the permission determination means determines whether to permit the predetermined processing based on the determination by the feature determination means and the determination by the speech determination means, and when the determined degree is smaller than the predetermined value, the connection control means does not cause the information processing system to be connected with the user communication device, and the permission determination means determines to permit the predetermined processing (see paras 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0100, 0102-0103).
Re claim 8. Goel discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, further comprising a generation means that generates, using machine learning, a model that outputs past risk degree information by using a plurality of combinations of past processing information and
determination information, the past processing information indicating details of a request for past
processing that is predetermined processing for which whether to give permission was
determined in a past, the past processing information including past requester identification
information for identifying a past presumed requester who was presumed to request the past
processing, the determination information indicating whether the past processing was determined
to be requested by a person different from the past presumed requester, the past risk degree
information indicating a degree of past risk in executing the past processing, the degree of past
risk changing in accordance with a probability that the past processing is requested by the person
different from the past presumed requester, wherein the risk degree determination means causes, based on the acquired processing information, risk degree information indicating the degree of risk to be output from the generated model (see paras 0099, 0103).
Re claim 9. Goel discloses the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein
the predetermined processing includes processing for the presumed requester to pay a
medium of exchange to a payee, and the details indicated by the past processing information include at least one of a date when the past processing was requested or a time when the past processing was requested, and the payee (see paras 0150).
Re claim 10. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the generation means calculates, based on the past processing information, a frequency at which the same past presumed requester requested the past processing for the same payee, and generates the model using the frequency and the determination information (see paras 0079, 0095).
Re claim 11. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the predetermined processing includes processing for the presumed requester to pay a
medium of exchange, the processing information further includes an amount of the medium of exchange to be paid, and the degree of risk to be determined indicates an expected value for an amount of a medium of exchange to be paid in response to the person different from the presumed requester requesting the predetermined processing (see para 0150).
Re claim 12. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein first user identification information for identifying a first user who can use the
information processing system, second user identification information for identifying the first
user as a second user who can use the voice communication system, and voice feature
information indicating a feature of a voice of the first user are stored in association with one
another in a storage means, the requester voice communication identification information acquisition means acquires, as the requester voice communication identification information, the second user identification information associated with the first user identification information matching the acquired requester identification information from the storage means, and the requester voice feature information acquisition means acquires, as the requester voice feature information, the voice feature information associated with the first user identification information matching the acquired requester identification information from the storage means (see fig.8, see paras 0007, 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 13. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, further comprising a voice information transmission means that transmits, to the user communication device connected with the information processing system for the voice communication, prompting voice information indicating a voice prompting a statement of either the affirmation or the negation (see fig.8, see paras 0007, 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 14. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the voice indicated by the prompting voice information includes a voice representing at least one of the details indicated by the processing information (see paras 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 15. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the predetermined processing includes processing for the presumed requester to pay a
medium of exchange, and the details indicated by the processing information include at least one of a date when the predetermined processing has been requested, a time when the predetermined processing has been requested, or an amount of the medium of exchange to be paid (see para 0150).
Re claim 16. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the information processing system stores, when the predetermined processing is found not to be processing requested by the presumed requester after the permission determination means determines to permit the predetermined processing, information indicating the feature of the first voice in a non-permission voice feature information storage means as non-permission voice feature information indicating a feature of a voice for which the permission determination means will not permit the predetermined processing in a future (see para 0069).
Re claim 17. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, further comprising an evidence information storage control means that stores, as evidence information indicating evidence that the presumed requester affirmed or negated the predetermined processing, the received voice information in an evidence information storage means in association with the processing information (see fig.8, see paras 0007, 0017, 0043, 0069, 0073).
Re claim 18. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, further comprising a second connection control means that causes, for the voice communication, the user communication device to be connected with an operator communication device of an operator that receives an inquiry about the predetermined processing when the permission determination means determines not to permit the predetermined processing (see para 0069).
Re claim 19. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the requester voice communication identification information is a phone number, and the user communication device has a telephone function (see para 0145).
Re claim 20. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the predetermined processing is payment using a predetermined payment method (see para 0150).
Re claim 21. Goel further discloses the information processing system according to claim 20, wherein the predetermined payment method is payment using a credit card, and the requester identification information is a number of the credit card (i.e. transaction details, see para 0150).
Re claims 22 and 23. Claims 22 and 23 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale as in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
A prior art of record (Krishnaswamy et al, US PUB: 2018/0146370), cited but not relied upon is found pertinent to claimed subject matter by disclosing “A METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SECURED AUTHENTICATION USING VOICE BIOMETRICS AND WATERMARKING.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights