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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the claims do not represent an abstract idea and do not include a “legal interaction” within certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant further asserts that the claims include an improvement to technology whereby the claims refer a “second biometrics authentication” and a “watch list” rather than a database.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that he claims represent an abstract idea. Claim 1 continues to recite and information processing apparatus that executes instructions to perform various biometric authentication procedures to authenticate a person for allowing access to a particular area and executing a settlement process which completes the purchase of at least one of a product and service once the person is authenticated within the particular area. Examiner asserts that claims as amended fall with certain methods of organizing human activity and more specifically represent commercial or legal interactions because the claims involve authenticating a person during a purchase and settlement for a product or service.
The claims further recite the use of a processing apparatus with a memory and processor to execute biometric authentication procedures by referring to information stored in a database or watch list. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are simply being used as tools to carry out the process of authenticating persons for purposes of making purchases and merely results in a general link to the use of a judicial exception in a particular technological environment. The claimed processor, memory and databases are used much like any other general purpose computer and database with no improvement thereof to the functioning of the processor or the technological field. Under step 2B, the claimed additional elements of the processor, memory and databases/watch list are recited at a high level of generality and are simply used as tools to perform authentication procedures of comparing acquired biometric information with stored biometric information to authenticate an individual before performing a purchase procedure and results in a general link to the use of a judicial exception in a particular technological environment. The processor, memory and databases/watch list are used as they ordinarily would be used and do not provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer or network and any other technological field. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea in a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technological field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Applicant’s only showing of an improvement to technology is the assertion that the claims refer to a “watch list” rather than a database, however, offers no specific information regarding how the claimed “watch list” provides a technical improvement. According to applicant’s specification, the claimed “watch list” refers to storing in a storage device basic passenger information for individuals that includes a passenger ID associated with a face image (0110). Examiner asserts that this is equivalent to a general database and provides no technical improvement or any improvement to the functioning of the computer or technological environment.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The analysis of the claims is based on the subject matter eligibility test that is detailed in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019 Update). The guidance is referenced in MPEP §§ 2103 through 2106.07(c).
In Step 1 of the test, the claims were found to be directed to one of the four statutory categories, which is a process. Claims 1-4, 13 and 14 are directed to an information processing apparatus that executes the process; claims 5-8, 15 and 16 are directed to an information processing method executing the process; and claims 9-12, 17 and 18 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing the instructions to perform the process. Therefore, the result of Step 1 is the claims are directed to at least one statutory category.
In Step 2A(1), the claims were found to recite an abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 5 and 9 recite a method similar to claim 5, which recites as follows:
An information processing method comprising:
executing, based on a person being at an entrance of a management area, a first biometrics authentication of the person by referring to a biometrics information database storing biometrics information acquired from the person;
executing, based on the person being within the management area and attempting a purchase of at least one of a product and a service from within the management area, a second biometrics authentication of the person by referring to a watch list, and the watch list includes the biometrics information of the person based on the first biometrics authentication being successful;
executing, based on the second biometrics authentication having failed while the person is within the management area and attempting the purchase the at least one of the product and the service from within the management area, a third biometrics authentication of the person by referring to the biometrics information database; and
executing, based on the second biometrics authentication of the person being successful, a settlement process which completes the purchase of the at least one of the product and the service, wherein
the second biometrics authentication of the person comprises acquiring a face image of the person, comparing, on a 1:N basis, the face image with a plurality of registered face images registered in the watch list,
the person is registered in the watch list, and
the settlement process is based on settlement information of the person registered in the watch list.
The emphasized limitations of the claims recite steps to process visitor information for authentication to give access and to execute a settlement process for the purchase of a product or service. The steps as recited are methods of evaluating and comparing data to authenticate a user. The method of authentication recited in the limitations is a simple search and comparison, and using databases and biometric data sources for determining identification would be an abstract idea under the exchange and validation of data as a commercial or legal interaction, under the grouping of Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-12 further support the interpretation of the abstract ideas, where the steps recite certain conditions to be met and non-functional descriptions. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(1) is the claims recite an abstract idea.
In Step 2A(2), the claims that recite the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The non-emphasized elements are additional elements that appear to execute the steps of the process. The additional elements are further recited in the claims 1 and 9, such as information processing apparatus comprising a memory to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute instructions; and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform. These additional elements do not recite an improvement to the process that is describing a computer performing the abstract idea, and they do not show an improvement to the technology. The elements tagged as “biometrics” are not recited as functional that would be part of the claimed invention, perhaps scanned or recorded by another device. Thus, the elements are recited as “extra-solution” activity and not changing the functions of a computer performing the abstract idea. The additional elements are reciting a process executed by a computer to perform the abstract idea and do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims attempt to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and also do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(2) is the claims do not include limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
In Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite information processing apparatus comprising a memory to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute instructions; and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform. While the additional elements limit the abstract idea to a specific field of technology, there is no improvement to the functions of the recited technology, nor is there an improvement to another technology or technical field. The recitation of biometric authentication does not recite an improvement to the technology where the biometrics are used to identify and be compared for authentication, similar to using a PIN or other secondary means of authentication. Thus, the additional elements merely recite instructions to execute the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements individually, the claims do not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements in combination, the steps do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea more than the elements analyzed individually and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. Therefore, the result of Step 2B is the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The test concludes the claims 1-18 are patent ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-18, these claims include further details regarding the abstract idea of user authentication through biometric data gathering, storing in databases, referring to the stored biometric information when comparing to acquired biometric information from the user, and deleting the stored biometric information when it is no longer needed. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0260887 (hereinafter “Ito”), in view of US 5,802,199 (hereinafter “Pare et al”) and further in view of US_2017/0070501 (hereinafter “Saito”)
Regarding Claims 1, 5 and 9, Ito teaches:
an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (Figures 1-2 and 5 and associated text); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform (Figures 1-2 and 5 and associated text):
executing, based on a person being at an entrance of a management area, a first biometrics authentication of a person by referring to a biometrics information database storing biometrics information acquired from the person (0025-0027; 0031-0034; 0053-0054)
executing, based on the person being within the management area and attempting a purchase of at least one of a product and a service from within the management area, a second biometrics authentication of the person by referring to a watch list, and the watch list includes the biometrics information of the person based on the first biometrics authentication being successful (0029-0031; 0036-0039; 0044; 0046; 0056-0057; 0077; 0080). Examiner notes here that the “visitor database” taught in Ito is being interpreted as the claimed “watch list” once the person has entered the “management area”. In accordance with the teachings of Ito, the person has entered a fitness club and is being monitored while in the fitness club and authenticated using the biometric information stored in the “visitor database” which is equivalent to a watch list.
executing, based on the second biometrics authentication of the person being successful, a settlement process which completes the purchase of the at least one of the product and the service (0029-0031; 0036-0039; 0056-0057; 0077; 0080), wherein
the second biometrics authentication of the person comprises acquiring biometrics of the person, comparing, on a 1:N basis, the biometrics with a plurality of registered biometrics registered in the watch list (0056-0057; 0077; 0080),
the person is registered in the watch list (0031; 0039, 0056-0057, 0077-0078) and,
the settlement process is based on settlement information of the person registered in the watch list (0029-0031; 0036-0039; 0056-0058, 0077-0078; 0080)
Ito teaches wherein the second biometrics authentication may have failed when referring to the watch list (0058; 0078), however, does not teach executing a third biometrics authentication of the person by referring to the biometrics information database.
Pare et al discloses a biometrics authentication system and teaches a local computer and a local comparator for authenticating biometrics of a person based on comparing a biometrics sample with biometric samples stored in a local computer database to produce either a failed or successful result. If the result is a failure, the biometric sample is transmitted to the master computer for comparison to samples stored in a master database at the master computer to produce either a failed or successful authentication result (Figure 8, Col. 9, line 59 – Col. 10, line 20). Examiner is interpreting the local computer database to be equivalent to the claimed watch list/database and the master database at the master computer to be equivalent to the claimed main biometrics information database.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ito to include referring to a master database to authenticate a person when an authentication fails while using a local computer and local biometrics database as taught by Pare et. As noted by Pare et al, this would help to prevent authentication failures in instances where the local computer/local biometric database is missing due to data purges, or where the biometric information for the person had not been stored in the local database, and was only included in the master database.
Ito further teaches storing biometric information in the visitor database which is equivalent to the claimed “watch list”, however, Ito does not teach that the biometric information stored in the watch list is face image information. Ito does suggest, however, that other types of biometric information may be used in the system for biometric authentication (0050).
Saito teaches a biometric authentication system and teaches databases with biometric information such as facial images that are referred to for biometric authentication purposes and storing the facial images in a feature data memory database (Figures 1, 3 and 5; 0046-0047; 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ito to include using other types of biometrics such as facial images for authentication as specifically taught by Pare et al and suggested by Ito (0050).
Regarding Claims 2, 6 and 10, Ito further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform:
acquiring, based on the person satisfying a predetermined condition, registered biometrics information of the person from the biometrics information database, and the biometrics information database records, on the watch list and based on the first biometrics authentication being successful, recording the registered biometrics information of the person (0034; 0042; 0055-0056).
Regarding Claims 3, 7 and 11, Ito further teaches deleting, based on the person leaving the management area, registered biometrics information of the person from the watch list (0048-0049; 0060-0063)
Regarding Claims 4, 8 and 12, Ito further teaches acquiring, based on the first biometrics authentication being successful, the registered biometrics information of the person (0036-0039).
Regarding Claims 13, 15 and 17, Ito further teaches wherein the person is registered in the watch list based on the first biometrics authentication being successful (0034; 0042; 0055-0056).
Regarding Claims 14, 16 and 18, Ito further teaches (0029-0031; 0036-0039; 0056-0057; 0077; 0080).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN W HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 6:00-4:00.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached on 571-272-5350. 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.
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights