DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination
This office action is in response to submission of application on 25-OCTOBER-2023.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 24-OCTOBER-2025 in response to the non-final office action mailed 16-MAY-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
With regards to the 101 rejection, the rejection to claim 1 has not been overcome by the applicant’s amendments. Despite applicant’s amendments, claim 1 still remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the basis of being an abstract idea.
With regards to the 103 rejections, the applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections to claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites an evaluation device that evaluates robustness. A device is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined
that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components:
calculate a similarity between a feature of an input to an authentication model and a feature of a template, wherein the authentication model comprises a feature extractor generated by a deep neural network; (An evaluation device will calculate the similarity by using the input in a formula for calculation and is therefore considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
repeat processing of updating a point included in a sphere centered on the input to an authentication model, according to a slope at the point of a function for which a local Lipschitz constant value is to be estimated, based on determining the processing has not been performed a predetermined number of times; (An evaluation device will update a point in a sphere as a process of a mathematical relation and is therefore considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
terminate the repeated processing of updating the point included in the sphere based on determining the processing has been performed the predetermined number of times; (An evaluation device will stop updating a point in a sphere as a result of a determination of a mathematical relation and is therefore considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
estimate a maximum value among candidates of the local Lipschitz constant value calculated for each updated point as the local Lipschitz constant value for the function; (An evaluation device will estimate the value among value candidates in the sphere as a process of a mathematical relation and is therefore considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
estimate an evaluation value of robustness of the authentication model based on a value obtained by subtracting the similarity from a determination threshold value for the similarity and dividing the subtracted value by the local Lipschitz constant value; (An evaluation device will estimate the robustness by using the similarity, threshold, and Lipschitz as a calculation and is therefore considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitations as a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then
it falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an
abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that
the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
A robustness evaluation device comprising: an interface; at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))
And control the interface to output the evaluation value of the robustness of the authentication model. ((In step 2A pong 2, controlling an interface is a mere application of a computer tool (interface device), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In step 2B, merely applying a computer tool is not indicative of significantly more.))
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration
into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the
claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element (iv) recites generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which is not indicative of
significantly more. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate the similarity based on a Euclidean distance, and estimate the robustness of the authentication model against authentication dodging based on the value obtained by subtracting the similarity from the determination threshold value and dividing the subtracted value by the local Lipschitz constant value. (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 3 recites The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate cosine similarity, and estimate the evaluation value of the robustness of the authentication model against authentication dodging based on the value obtained by subtracting the determination threshold value from the similarity and dividing the subtracted value by the local Lipschitz constant value. (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 4 The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate the similarity based on a Euclidean distance, and estimate the evaluation values of the robustness of the authentication model against impersonation based on the value obtained by subtracting the determination threshold value from the similarity and dividing the subtracted value by the local Lipschitz constant value. (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and
corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate cosine similarity and estimate the robustness of the authentication model against impersonation based on the value obtained by subtracting the similarity from the determination threshold value and dividing the subtracted value by the local Lipschitz constant value. (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 16 recites The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether or not the updated point belongs to the sphere; (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mental concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) and correct the updated point in a case where it is determined that the updated point does not belong to the sphere. (In step 2A, prong 1, this recites a mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 17 recites The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the interface is configured to perform a communication function. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 18 recites The robustness evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the interface is configured to perform a display function. (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-10 and 11-15, they comprise of limitations similar to those of claims 1-5 and are therefore rejected for similar rationale. Regarding claims 19 and 20, they comprise of limitations similar to those of claim 16 and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 and will remain rejected until the 101 rejections set forth have been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24-OCTOBER-2025 have been fully considered, but they are found to be non-persuasive
With regards to the applicant’s remarks regarding the 101 rejection towards mathematical concept, the applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection of processing and estimating data
Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, independent claim 1 is amended to additionally recite "an interface," to clarify the "authentication model comprises a feature extractor generated by a deep neural network," and to additionally recite "terminate the repeated processing of updating the point included in the sphere based on determining the processing has been performed the predetermined number of times." Applicant respectfully submits these features are not mathematical concepts. Applicant respectfully submits these features involve technical complexity that could not be performed as a mental process, even with the use of pen and paper. Further, these features are also not directed to mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity.
With regards to this argument, the office disagrees and has noted the claim limitation amended into claim 1 regarding terminating the process as a mathematical process as it relates to stopping a mathematical process based on a calculation done during said process. Further, the authentication model itself is present in the claims as merely the field upon which the invention is used. In a similar way, the interface is also simply a display for the calculations, i.e. a computer tool, and is not indicative of significantly more nor of integrating the calculations into a practical invention.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits these features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, paragraphs [0162]-[0165] of the specification indicate that by repeatedly estimating a local Lipschitz constant a predetermined number of times, a local Lipschitz constant value can be estimated with increased accuracy. Thus, these technical features clearly relate to a technical improvement. In this regard, these additional features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
With regards to this argument, it should be noted that the improvement cannot be the abstract idea, or mathematical concept, itself. The act of the termination based on bounds set by a calculated formula is an abstract idea. Further, the improvement of estimation accuracy is not reflected in the claims. According to MPEP 2106(a)(II), the claims themselves have to show the improvement as well: “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. “
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 SKIELER A KOWALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-1850. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571)270-1006. 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.
/SKIELER ALEXANDER KOWALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2142 /Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142