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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 May 2026 has been entered.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/041789 with a filing date of 12 November 2021. Therefore, the effective filing date of the claims is 12 November 2021.
Interview
The examiner called applicant’s representative, Andrew Taska (Reg. No. 54,666), using the provided phone number and left voicemails on 30 July 2026 and 11 August 2026 detailing proposed claim amendments that would have corrected the issues indicated in this Office action and put the claims in condition for allowance. However, applicant’s representative was not able to provide an answer prior to the filing of this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 04 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 6-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the new claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 31—“the expiration date” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. For examination purposes, “the expiration date” will be interpreted to be referring to “an expiration” of line 23. This objection may be overcome by amending line 23 to state --an expiration date--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, line 7—“a position”, it is unclear as to whether “a position” is referring to “a position” of line 3. For examination purposes “a position” of line 7 will be interpreted to be referring to “a position” of line 3. This rejection may be overcome by amending line 7 to state --the position--.
Regarding claim 10, lines 1-2—“A mobile terminal carried by a target person who is subjected to authentication processing in an authentication apparatus according to claim 1”, there is not a clear-cut indication of scope of the subject matter covered by the claim since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim. The claim scope is not clear with regard to the “mobile terminal” and the steps performed by the execution of the instructions of the mobile terminal of claim 10. The issue here is that claim 10 is now dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 is directed to “An authentication apparatus” and the steps performed by the execution of the instructions of the authentication apparatus and not the “mobile terminal”.
For examination purposes, claim 10 will be interpreted to include a system that comprises the authentication apparatus limitations of claim 1 and the mobile terminal limitations of claim 10. In order to overcome this rejection, the claim may be amended to be an independent claim and be directed to the system that comprises the authentication apparatus limitations and mobile terminal limitations. Another alternative would be to cancel claim 10.
See MPEP 2173.05(g): “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.”
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 9 would be allowable if claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the claim objection.
Claims 8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the cited references—Levitov (US 2008/0087720 A1), Gopalakrishnan et al. (US 2021/0014070 A1), Kawai et al. (US 2019/0080074 A1), Ghorpade et al. (US 2018/0061155 A1), Moriwaki et al. (US 2022/0012323 A1), and Nakanishi Sei et al. (JP 2021139271 A)—do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the following limitations of claim 1 in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1:
“wherein the target area includes a first target area to be entered first and a plurality of second target areas to be entered after entry into the first target area, and wherein each of the plurality of second target areas is associated in advance with authorized identification information that identifies at least one of an authorized person being the target person who has authority to enter a corresponding second target area, and an authorized terminal being a mobile terminal carried by the authorized person” and
to: “acquire, from the mobile terminal, authentication identification information that identifies at least one of the target person and the mobile terminal, along with target area identification information identifying a second target area among the plurality of second target areas, when the target person enters the second target area after entering the first target area”.
Levitov (US 2008/0087720 A1) discloses the servicer goes to the first currency-handling machine along the service route (Fig. 5, el. 520; Para. 31), and upon identifying a match, the DAD 120 sends a signal to cause the electronic lock mechanism 140 to unlock the door or panel 135 (Fig. 1, el. 135, 140; Para. 18). Furthermore, in block 560, the sensed biometric characteristic is compared with the biometric reference template, and if they match, as illustrated by decision block 570, then in block 580 the servicer is granted access to the currency repository 130 (Fig. 5, el. 570, 580; Para. 32).
However, the cited references do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the aforementioned limitations.
Claim 12 includes similar limitations and is similarly analyzed.
Also see pages 10-11 of applicant’s remarks filed 04 May 2026.
Additional relevant prior art:
Saito et al. (US 2016/0269401 A1)—Saito discloses the person authentication system includes a second immigration authentication device 401 at a second departure gate 400 (an example of a second position) that is positioned at the downstream side of the first departure gate 3 in the direction of traffic of the persons passing through the immigration gate (Fig. 4; Para. 44).
Atef Ayoub et al. (US 2023/0403163 A1)—Atef Ayoub discloses the embedded device processor 46 of the embedded device 44 may determine that the second device certificate 38 is valid by using the public key of the root certificate to authenticate the second controller 28 (block 708) (Fig. 7, el. 708; Para. 84).
Ho et al. (US 2016/0180618 A1)—Ho discloses managing access to a shared resource based on identity that is established by use of personal data, such as biometric data, a password, etc. An electronic lock can be used to restrict access to a shared resource, such as a house, a car, etc. (Abstract).
Troesch et al. (US 2021/0049847 A1)—Troesch discloses that an access control system receives a device-specific identifier of a mobile electronic device and an electronic reference template for facial parameters of a user. The reception takes place when the mobile device is located in a public zone, from which the user can request access to an access-restricted zone. An image processing unit generates a real-time template for facial features of the user based on an image of the user when the user requests access to the access-restricted zone. It determines if the real-time template matches a reference template stored in the memory unit to a defined degree, wherein the user is recognized as an access-requesting user in the event of a match (Abstract).
The additional relevant prior art also do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the aforementioned limitations in combination with the remaining limitations of each respective independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY DUFFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571) 272-8878. 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.
26 August 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights