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
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, the applicant has elected to not address the merits of the double patenting rejections. Therefore, they are maintained.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the applicant argues “Tussy does not teach or suggest the above described features of claim 1, namely, that if authentication fails, the authentication terminal changes its response (behavior) depending on whether the first or second verification failed.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Tussy discloses if authentication fails (¶ [0103], “Alternatively, if the credentials provided by the user are not verified, the authentication server may transmit a message to display on the screen of the mobile device 112 indicating that the login attempt failed”; ¶ [0104], “In one embodiment, the server 120 may allow three consecutive failed login attempts before requiring a user name and password”), the authentication (¶ [0103], “The authentication server 120 may then allow the user to try again to log in via the facial recognition login system, or the authentication server 120 may require the user to enter typical account credentials, such as a user name and password”; ¶ [0104], “In one embodiment, the server 120 may allow three consecutive failed login attempts before requiring a user name and password. If in one of the attempts, the required level of correspondence is met, then the user may be verified, and access may be granted. According to one embodiment, the authentication server 120 may retain the information from each successive authentication attempt and combine the data from the multiple authentication attempts to achieve more accurate facial biometric information of the person attempting to authenticate. In addition, the level of correspondence may be increased at each successive attempt to authenticate”) depending on whether the first or second verification failed (¶ [0103], wherein if the first authentication attempt fails the authentication server may choose one of allowing the user to try facial recognition again or requiring typical credentials; ¶ [0104], wherein the authentication server may allow three consecutive failed login attempts before changing its behavior to require a user name and password, and further wherein the authentication server may increase the level of correspondence required for each successive attempt to authenticate).
As stated in the Office action mailed on 10/8/25, Choi discloses an authentication terminal (Abstract, “A wireless/wired integrated biometric authentication terminal having a multiple safety lock function is provided.”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/691,519 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
See the Office action mailed on 8/27/25 for the reference application for the claim correspondence between the applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tussy, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0181737 A1, in view of CHOI et al. (hereafter referred to as Choi), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0117980 A1.
As to claim 1, Tussy discloses at least one memory storing a set of instructions (¶ [0046], “The server 120 and mobile device 112 are configured with a processor and memory and are configured to execute machine readable code or machine instructions stored in the memory.”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (¶ [0046], “The server 120 and mobile device 112 are configured with a processor and memory and are configured to execute machine readable code or machine instructions stored in the memory.”) to:
acquire first biometric information of a user (Abstract, “capturing and storing enrollment biometric information from at least one first image of the user taken via the camera of the mobile device”) and determining data to determine whether or not to provide a service to the user from another apparatus (¶ [0047], “The database 124, stored on mobile device or remote location as shown, may contain facial biometric information and authentication information of users 108 to identify the users 108 to allow access to associated user data based on one or more images or biometric information received from the mobile device 112 or watch 134. The data may be, for example, information relating to a user account or instruction to allow access to a separate account information server 120B.”; ¶ [0136], “As another example, if the authentication service is used to login to websites or apps”);
acquire second biometric information of the user (Claim 8, “obtain second biometric data based on facial recognition data from the at least one second image”);
authenticate the user based on a first verification using the first biometric information and the second biometric information (Claim 8, “comparing the first biometric data with first stored biometric data to determine whether the first biometric data matches the first stored biometric data; comparing the second biometric data with second stored biometric data to determine whether the second biometric data matches the second stored biometric data, the second stored biometric data being distinct from the first stored biometric data; and authenticating the user when the first biometric data matches the first stored biometric data and second biometric data matches the second stored biometric data”) and a second verification using the determining data (¶ [0047], “The database 124, stored on mobile device or remote location as shown, may contain facial biometric information and authentication information of users 108 to identify the users 108 to allow access to associated user data based on one or more images or biometric information received from the mobile device 112 or watch 134. The data may be, for example, information relating to a user account or instruction to allow access to a separate account information server 120B.”; ¶ [0136], “As another example, if the authentication service is used to login to websites or apps”); and
provide the service to a person who has been successfully authenticated in a case where a result of an authentication is successful (¶ [0047], “The database 124, stored on mobile device or remote location as shown, may contain facial biometric information and authentication information of users 108 to identify the users 108 to allow access to associated user data based on one or more images or biometric information received from the mobile device 112 or watch 134. The data may be, for example, information relating to a user account or instruction to allow access to a separate account information server 120B.”; ¶ [0136], “As another example, if the authentication service is used to login to websites or apps”), and determine an action to be taken for a person who has failed in the authentication according to which of the first verification or the second verification has failed in a case where the result of the authentication is unsuccessful (¶¶ [0103] and [0104]).
Tussy is silent on an authentication terminal.
However, Choi discloses an authentication terminal (Abstract, “A wireless/wired integrated biometric authentication terminal having a multiple safety lock function is provided.”).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Tussy in the aforementioned manner as taught by Choi in order to apply the benefits of Tussy’s invention to a common device such as an authentication terminal.
As to claim 8, Tussy discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions (¶ [0046], “The server 120 and mobile device 112 are configured with a processor and memory and are configured to execute machine readable code or machine instructions stored in the memory.”) to acquire the first biometric information and the determining data from a server apparatus that stores the first biometric information of the user and the determining data (¶ [0086], “As described above, the mobile device 112 may include face detection. In this embodiment in step 524, the mobile device may detect the user's face in each of the enrollment images, crop the images to include only the user's face, and send, via a network, the images to the authentication server 120. In step 526, upon receipt of the enrollment images, the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information (“enrollment biometrics”) for the user. The authentication server 120 may then associate the enrollment biometrics with the device information and the unique identifier (or account information) and stores the biometric information in the database 124 in step 528.”; ¶ [0092], “In one embodiment outlined in FIG. 8, the user via the mobile device 112 obtains several authentication images in step 810 while moving the mobile device 112 to different positions relative to the user's head. Using facial detection in step 812, the mobile device 112 detects the user's face in each of the authentication images, crops the images, and sends the images to the authentication server 120. In another embodiment, the mobile device 112 sends the images to the server 124, and the server 124 performs facial detection. In step 814, the authentication routing 120 may perform facial recognition on the authentication images to obtain biometric information (“authentication biometrics”).”).
As to claim 9, Tussy discloses wherein the biometric information is a face image or a feature value generated from the face image (¶ [0086], “As described above, the mobile device 112 may include face detection. In this embodiment in step 524, the mobile device may detect the user's face in each of the enrollment images, crop the images to include only the user's face, and send, via a network, the images to the authentication server 120. In step 526, upon receipt of the enrollment images, the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information (“enrollment biometrics”) for the user. The authentication server 120 may then associate the enrollment biometrics with the device information and the unique identifier (or account information) and stores the biometric information in the database 124 in step 528.”; ¶ [0092], “In one embodiment outlined in FIG. 8, the user via the mobile device 112 obtains several authentication images in step 810 while moving the mobile device 112 to different positions relative to the user's head. Using facial detection in step 812, the mobile device 112 detects the user's face in each of the authentication images, crops the images, and sends the images to the authentication server 120. In another embodiment, the mobile device 112 sends the images to the server 124, and the server 124 performs facial detection. In step 814, the authentication routing 120 may perform facial recognition on the authentication images to obtain biometric information (“authentication biometrics”).”).
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to those given for claim 1 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tussy, in view of Choi, and further in view of YOON (hereafter referred to as “Yoon”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0382307 A1.
As to claim 10, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to claim 1 above for all but the limitation “a terminal possessed by a user.”
Tussy and Choi are silent on a terminal possessed by a user.
However, Yoon discloses a terminal possessed by a user (Abstract).
It 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 to modify the teachings of Tussy and Choi in the aforementioned manner as taught by Yoon in order to apply the benefits of Tussy’s invention and Choi’s invention to a common device such as a user terminal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the invention as claimed. This is not a statement that any one limitation in a vacuum is allowable subject matter, but rather that the combination of the claim limitations as a whole are not obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Juhani et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0310801 A1, discloses “failed authentication may be based, at least in part, on determination that the first authentication failed or the second authentication failed” (¶ [0178]).
BAE, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0118572 A1, discloses “When the second authentication is determined as being failed, the processor 120 may update a personator model stored in the memory 110 based on characteristic information of at least one of an input voice successful for the first authentication or a voice input while the voice recognition service is provided. As a result, the accuracy of the first authentication and the second authentication may be improved” (¶ [0084]).
CHAE, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0309138 A1, discloses “Further, for example, in the first authentication method, whether authentication is successful or has failed is determined based on a match between input authentication information and registered authentication information, and in the second authentication method, whether authentication is successful or has failed is determined based on a similarity between the input authentication information and the registered authentication information” (¶ [0091]).
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 Brian Whipple whose telephone number is (571)270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET and Saturdays from 10:30 AM to 8:30 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
2/14/26