CTNF 18/752,899 CTNF 80352 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding independent claims 1 , 8 , and 15 , Step 1 Analysis : Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and apparatus, which falls within one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites, “obtaining, when first sensing data associated with an account of a participant in a remote conversation is received, feature information of a motion, voice, or a state or any combination of a motion, voice, or a state of the participant, the feature information being extracted from past second sensing data of the participant and having an extraction frequency lower than a first reference value”, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind of which falls within the ”Mental Processing” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation can be understood to be an observation, evaluation can be done mentally through a human mind, a human mind can observe image data and determine a target person appearing and identify its behavior to be compared with a frequency condition and determine it based on certain condition; and “making a determination related to spoofing based on a matching degree between the feature information extracted from the first sensing data and the feature information extracted from the second sensing data”, can be understood to be an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind which can detect through the image data a target person to be displayed on a screen having a suspicion of spoofing or not, and then output a message prompting the person. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis : there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP 2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. For all of the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claims. Moreover, claims 2 , 9 , and 16 recite, "wherein the making the determination related to the spoofing includes: calculating the matching degree for each of a plurality of pairs of the feature information extracted from the first sensing data and the feature information extracted from the second sensing data; and determining that the spoofing has occurred when a number of the pairs in which the matching degree is lower than a second reference value is smaller than a third reference value" which can be understood to be an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind, the human mind can identify behavior of a person based on observing image data. Claims 3 , 10 , and 17 recite, in part, "wherein the feature information includes a phrase uttered by the participant, and the obtaining the feature information includes: comparing, with the first reference value, the extraction frequency of a phrase calculated based on an appearance frequency of each of a plurality of words included in the phrase uttered by the participant among all words uttered by the participant in entire video of the participant" which can be understood to be an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind, the human mind can detect spoofing a person by observing image data based on a certain criteria for the detection. Claims 4 , 11 , and 18 recite, in part, "wherein the first sensing data includes video in which the participant is imaged in the remote conversation in progress with the participant, and the second sensing data includes video in which the participant is imaged in the remote conversation previously held with the participant”, which is an additional element, under Step 2A Prong 2, to be a step of data gathering or extracting data from image data hence, abstract idea of an extra-solution activity which is insignificant. Claims 5 , 12 , and 19 recite, wherein the making the determination related to the spoofing includes: determining that the spoofing has occurred when a number of pairs in which a difference between the matching degree between second feature information with the frequency of extraction from the first sensing data lower than a fourth reference value and the second feature information extracted from the second sensing data and the matching degree between first feature information with the frequency of extraction from the first sensing data higher than a fifth reference value and the first feature information extracted from the second sensing data is smaller than a sixth reference value is equal to or larger than a seventh reference value”, which can be understood to be an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind, the human mind can detect spoofing a person by observing image data based on a certain criteria for the detection. Claims 6 , 13 , and 20 recite, “wherein the process further comprising: outputting notification information that indicates that the spoofing has occurred when the spoofing is determined to have occurred”, which is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 7 and 14 recite, “wherein the process further comprising: revoking authority to participate in the remote conversation from the account of the participant who is a target of the spoofing when the spoofing is determined to have occurred”, which can be understood to be an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind, the human mind can determine to revoke authority based on detecting spoofing a person by observing image data based on a certain criteria for the detection. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuki (JP 6901190), cited in the IDS dated 6/25/24, reference will be made to the translation provided by the applicant . Regarding claims 1 , 8 , and 15 , Katsuki discloses an information processing apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a determination program that causes a computer to execute a process, and a method for determination that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: obtaining, when first sensing data associated with an account of a participant in a remote conversation is received, feature information of a motion, voice, or a state or any combination of a motion, voice, or a state of the participant, the feature information being extracted from past second sensing data of the participant and having an extraction frequency lower than a first reference value (see paras 19, 22, 24, 28, 38, 40, 44, 46-50, and 74, participation terminal 1 includes a photographing part 4 , a speech recording part 5 , a behavior information part 6 , and a participation information generation part 7 for generating video data, voice data, behavior/motion data, and the state of a person, behavior information database 16 stores behavior data, which is a combination of video, voice, and motion data, behavior information comparison unit 19 compares current behavior information of a participant of a terminal with stored behavior information to determine if matching exists and thus no spoofing is detected or if spoofing is detected, appearance frequency thresholds are used to determine comparison and matching); making a determination related to spoofing based on a matching degree between the feature information extracted from the first sensing data and the feature information extracted from the second sensing data (see paras 28 and 40-44, behavior information comparison unit 19 compares current behavior information of a participant of a terminal with stored behavior information to determine if matching exists and thus no spoofing is detected or if spoofing is detected). Regarding claims 2 , 9 , and 16 , Katsuki further discloses wherein the making the determination related to the spoofing includes: calculating the matching degree for each of a plurality of pairs of the feature information extracted from the first sensing data and the feature information extracted from the second sensing data (see paras 28, 35, and 38, a plurality of behavior information can be compared, including video, voice, and motion data); and determining that the spoofing has occurred when a number of the pairs in which the matching degree is lower than a second reference value is smaller than a third reference value (see paras 40-41 and 74-75, behavior information comparison unit 19 compares current behavior information of a participant of a terminal with stored behavior information to determine if matching exists and thus no spoofing is detected or if spoofing is detected, appearance frequency thresholds are used to determine comparison and matching). Regarding claims 3 , 10 , and 17 , Katsuki further discloses wherein the feature information includes a phrase uttered by the participant (see paras 19 and 24, a speech recording part 5 generates voice data), and the obtaining the feature information includes: comparing, with the first reference value, the extraction frequency of a phrase calculated based on an appearance frequency of each of a plurality of words included in the phrase uttered by the participant among all words uttered by the participant in entire video of the participant (see paras 28, 38, 40, and 50-51, behavior information comparison unit 19 compares current behavior information of a participant of a terminal with stored behavior information to determine if matching exists and thus no spoofing is detected or if spoofing is detected, appearance frequency thresholds are used to determine comparison and matching, the behavior information can be words or utterances of phrases). Regarding claims 4 , 11 , and 18 , Katsuki further discloses wherein the first sensing data includes video in which the participant is imaged in the remote conversation in progress with the participant (see paras 19, 22, and 38, participation terminal 1 includes a photographing part 4 , a speech recording part 5 , a behavior information part 6 , and a participation information generation part 7 for generating video data, voice data, behavior/motion data, and the state of a person), and the second sensing data includes video in which the participant is imaged in the remote conversation previously held with the participant (see paras 22, 28, 35, 38, and 40, behavior information database 16 stores behavior data, which is a combination of video, voice, and motion data, behavior information comparison unit 19 compares current behavior information of a participant of a terminal with stored behavior information to determine if matching exists and thus no spoofing is detected or if spoofing is detected, appearance frequency thresholds are used to determine comparison and matching). Regarding claims 5 , 12 , and 19 , Katsuki further discloses wherein the making the determination related to the spoofing includes: determining that the spoofing has occurred when a number of pairs in which a difference between the matching degree between second feature information with the frequency of extraction from the first sensing data lower than a fourth reference value and the second feature information extracted from the second sensing data and the matching degree between first feature information with the frequency of extraction from the first sensing data higher than a fifth reference value and the first feature information extracted from the second sensing data is smaller than a sixth reference value is equal to or larger than a seventh reference value (see paras 35-41, 44-50, and 74, behavior information comparison unit 19 compares current behavior information of a participant of a terminal with stored behavior information to determine if matching exists and thus no spoofing is detected or if spoofing is detected, appearance frequency thresholds are used to determine comparison and matching). Regarding claims 6 , 13 , and 20 , Katsuki further discloses wherein the process further comprising: outputting notification information that indicates that the spoofing has occurred when the spoofing is determined to have occurred (see paras 41-43, 48, and 75, output unit 22 outputs the warning information generated by the warning information generation unit 21 when spoofing has occurred). Regarding claims 7 and 14 , Katsuki further discloses wherein the process further comprising: revoking authority to participate in the remote conversation from the account of the participant who is a target of the spoofing when the spoofing is determined to have occurred (see paras 42, 48, and 75, a determination to revoke authority can be made when spoofing is detected) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To show the state of the art please refer to the attached Notice of References Cited . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. 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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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. /MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 2 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 3 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 4 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 5 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 7 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 8 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 9 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/752,899 Page 10 Art Unit: 2681
Prosecution Insights