DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 08/06/2024.
Status of claims in the instant application:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
No claim restrictions warranted at the applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/003956 filed on 02/07/2023. This also claims benefit of “JAPAN 2022-026557 filed on 02/24/2022”. A certified priority document has been made available by the Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 08/06/2024 have been considered, and a signed copies of the IDS forms have been attached to this office action.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 08/06/2024 have been inspected, and it’s in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Specification
Specification filed on 08/06/2024 has been inspected and it’s in compliance with MPEP 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1, 7: “… an acquisition unit that acquires …” , “a function execution control unit ..”
Claim 2, 3: “a generation unit that generates”, “an authentication unit”
Claim 5, 6: “a notification unit that notifies”, “ the notification unit notifies”
Claim 8, 9: “a monitoring unit that monitors”
Claim 10, 12: “a generation unit that transmits …”, “an authentication unit that transmits …”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner has investigated the disclosure (specification, drawing …) and find the following for the place holder (nonce) terms identified above. However, the disclosure does not describe/define any of the identified place holder (nonce) terms in any way beyond the function it performs. There is no algorithm and associated hardware described for the place holder (nonce) terms in Applicant’s disclosure.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Examiner identified various place holder (nonce) terms in various claims, please refer to claim interpretation section above, and the claim limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Examiner has investigated the disclosure (specification, drawing …) and find the following for the place holder (nonce) terms identified above. However, the disclosure does not describe/define any of the identified place holder (nonce) terms in any way beyond the function it performs. There is no algorithm and associated hardware described for the place holder (nonce) terms in Applicant’s disclosure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner identified various place holder (nonce) terms in various claims, please refer to claim interpretation section above, and the claim limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Examiner has investigated the disclosure (specification, drawing …) and find the following for the place holder (nonce) terms identified above. However, the disclosure does not describe/define any of the identified place holder (nonce) terms in any way beyond the function it performs. There is no algorithm and associated hardware described for the place holder (nonce) terms in Applicant’s disclosure.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “software per se”.
Claim 14, as recited (A program causing a mobile computer to realize: …), is directed to a program/software. Although, the claim recites a mobile computer, the mobile computer is there to use with the claimed invention. However, software is not a patent eligible subject matter, and hence claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 101 for not being a patent eligible subject matter.
Appropriate correction required.
Double Patenting
No claim rejection is warranted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that and form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No.: CN 109492362 A to XIAO (hereinafter “XIAO”) – Provided in IDS by the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 1. XIAO discloses An information processing apparatus, which is a mobile information processing apparatus (XIAO, Abstract: … The invention claims a sensitive operation verifying method, apparatus, mobile terminal and computer storage medium, belonging to the technical field of mobile terminal …), comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires first behavior data indicating a behavior of an authorized user (XIAO, Para [0033-0034]: … Obtaining the user's reference gait characteristics through the sensors configured on the mobile terminal …) and second behavior data indicating a behavior of a current user (XIAO, Para [0050-0055]: … 202. Real-time recording of gait data collected by the mobile terminal … When the mobile terminal is powered on, the accelerometer and three-axis gyroscope sensors in the mobile terminal continuously measure acceleration and angular velocity data. During the real-time gait data collection process, data can be recorded in real time … 203. When a sensitive operation command is received, extract real-time gait characteristics from the real-time recorded gait data …); and
a function execution control unit that stops execution of a predetermined function in a case where the current user is not authenticated as the authorized user by personal authentication referring the second behavior data to personal authentication information of the authorized user generated based on the first behavior data when an execution permission request for the predetermined function is accepted (XIAO, Para [0056, 0061-0063, 0081-0083]: … During the use of the mobile terminal, the user can select which sensitive operations to verify in the system settings or applications of the mobile terminal. The mobile terminal submits setting information to the user through the user interface. The user selects the corresponding sensitive operation option that needs verification and clicks the enable button after the option. The mobile terminal receives the user's selection and stores it. Thus, when the user clicks the corresponding sensitive operation that requires verification while using the mobile terminal, the mobile terminal does not immediately execute the sensitive operation instruction. Instead, the mobile terminal sends a port call instruction to the sensor and memory, calling the real-time gait features stored in the mobile terminal's memory in step 202 … Real-time gait data to be analyzed can be obtained through any of the above three methods. Then, a feature extraction algorithm similar to the above reference gait features is applied to extract real-time gait features to characterize the gait of the user who initiated the sensitive operation … 204. Calculate the matching degree between the real-time gait features and the reference gait features …The matching degree between the real-time gait feature and the reference gait feature refers to the degree of similarity between the gait data of the mobile terminal user obtained through real-time measurement and the reference gait features of the mobile terminal's main user collected in advance … if the input verification information result does not match the pre-stored verification information result, the verification is considered unsuccessful, and the sensitive operation is ignored and not executed …).
Regarding Claim 2. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, XIAO further discloses, “further comprising:
a generation unit that generates the personal authentication information based on the first behavior data and causes a storage unit included in an own device to store the personal authentication information (XIAO, Para [0041, 0099-0101]: … The user can wear a wearable device, such as a smart bracelet, and during walking, the sensors configured in the wearable device measure and acquire the user's gait data. Afterward, the user can synchronize the gait data stored in the wearable device to the mobile terminal via Bluetooth or other means by enabling the corresponding settings or application in the mobile terminal, and obtain the reference gait characteristics through analysis, which are then stored in the mobile terminal …); and
an authentication unit that performs the personal authentication when the execution permission request is accepted (XIAO, Para [0102]: … A second analysis unit is configured to calculate a similarity based on a first curve image and a second curve image, and use the calculated similarity as the matching degree, wherein the first curve image is an image drawn based on the gait data, and the second curve image is an image drawn based on the reference gait features; if the matching degree is greater than or equal to a preset threshold, determine that the sensitive operation was initiated by the user; if the matching degree is less than the preset threshold, determine that the sensitive operation was not initiated by the user. …).”
Regarding Claim 3. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, XIAO further discloses, “wherein
the first behavior data is gait data indicating a gait of the authorized user (XIAO, Abstract, Para [0033-0034]: … This invention discloses a verification method, apparatus, mobile terminal, and computer storage medium for sensitive operations, belonging to the field of terminal technology. By acquiring the user's reference gait characteristics …),
the second behavior data is gait data indicating a gait of the current user (XIAO, Abstract, Para [0033-0034]: … This invention discloses a verification method, apparatus, mobile terminal, and computer storage medium for sensitive operations, belonging to the field of terminal technology. By acquiring the user's reference gait characteristics and recording the user's gait data in real time, this invention can verify sensitive operations …), and
the authentication unit performs the personal authentication by a gait authentication method (XIAO, Abstract, Para [0033-0034]: … This invention discloses a verification method, apparatus, mobile terminal, and computer storage medium for sensitive operations, belonging to the field of terminal technology. By acquiring the user's reference gait characteristics and recording the user's gait data in real time, this invention can verify sensitive operations without relying on a network connection when a sensitive operation command is detected. Instead, it verifies the current sensitive operation based on the reference gait characteristics using the user's mobile terminal itself …).”
Regarding Claim 4. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, XIAO further discloses, “further comprising
an inertial sensor (XIAO, Para [0029]: … The mobile terminal 101 can be configured with at least one sensor. A sensor is a sensor device with certain data measurement functions, such as an accelerometer, a three-axis gyroscope, and a gravity sensor …), wherein
the first behavior data and the second behavior data include at least sensor data of the inertial sensor (XIAO, Para [0029-003-37, 0041-0042]… Among them, an accelerometer is used to measure the acceleration values along the three coordinate axes (x, y, and z) during terminal use, while a three-axis gyroscope is used to measure the angular velocity values during mobile terminal use … 201. Obtaining the user's reference gait characteristics through the sensors configured on the mobile terminal. …).”
Regarding Claim 13. This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 1, and hence similarly rejected as claim 1.
*** Note: XIAO also discloses a method (XIAO: Abstract, FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 14. This claim contains all the same or similar limitations as claim 1, and hence similarly rejected as claim 1.
*** Note: XIAO also discloses a program stored on a memory (XIAO: Para [0016]).
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 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.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: CN 109492362 A to XIAO (hereinafter “XIAO”) – Provided in IDS by the Applicant, in view of Pub. No.: JP 2010517430 A to DP technologies (hereinafter “DPT”) – Provided in IDS by the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 5. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach, but DPT from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“further comprising
a notification unit that notifies a notification destination registered in advance in a case where the current user is not authenticated as the authorized user (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature logic unit 130 and the calculation logic unit 140 are arranged on the remote calculation device 240 side. In this embodiment, the comparison between the previous gait signature and the new gait data is executed on the computing device 240 side. In one embodiment, if the compared gait signatures do not match, the computing device 240 signals the portable device 220 to lock it. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 or portable device 220 uses an access code so that it can be unlocked. If the entered access code is incorrect, in one embodiment, the system may be permanently locked. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 may further send an alert to the user via an alternative communication method. In one embodiment, the device may be unlocked only by sending a predetermined message to the device through an alternative channel. This ensures that if someone steals the device and obtains or finds an access code, the device remains unusable unless the alternate channel fails. In one embodiment, the alternate channel sends an SMS message to the device, and the computing device 240 provides a one-time unlock code to the user via the alternate communication channel …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DPT into the teachings of XIAO, because it discloses that, “once the mobile device 220 is permanently locked down, the user contacts the controlling authority to provide authentication information and receive / reset the access code. The portable device must be accessible. In one embodiment, if the mobile device shuts down, the user is sent a message over a different communication path, a call is made, or otherwise an access failure is notified. In this embodiment, when the mobile device 220 is locked, the owner will be notified that any unauthorized user will be denied access to use the mobile device (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036])”.
Regarding Claim 6. The combination of XIAO-DPT discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, DPT further discloses, “wherein
the notification unit notifies the notification destination of at least one of a fact that execution of the function has been stopped without the current user being authenticated as the authorized user and a current position (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature logic unit 130 and the calculation logic unit 140 are arranged on the remote calculation device 240 side. In this embodiment, the comparison between the previous gait signature and the new gait data is executed on the computing device 240 side. In one embodiment, if the compared gait signatures do not match, the computing device 240 signals the portable device 220 to lock it. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 or portable device 220 uses an access code so that it can be unlocked. If the entered access code is incorrect, in one embodiment, the system may be permanently locked. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 may further send an alert to the user via an alternative communication method. In one embodiment, the device may be unlocked only by sending a predetermined message to the device through an alternative channel. This ensures that if someone steals the device and obtains or finds an access code, the device remains unusable unless the alternate channel fails. In one embodiment, the alternate channel sends an SMS message to the device, and the computing device 240 provides a one-time unlock code to the user via the alternate communication channel …).”
The motivation to further combine DPT remains same as in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach, but DPT from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
wherein
the function execution control unit stops execution of the function executable from a lock screen only by the authorized user (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature logic unit 130 and the calculation logic unit 140 are arranged on the remote calculation device 240 side. In this embodiment, the comparison between the previous gait signature and the new gait data is executed on the computing device 240 side. In one embodiment, if the compared gait signatures do not match, the computing device 240 signals the portable device 220 to lock it. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 or portable device 220 uses an access code so that it can be unlocked. If the entered access code is incorrect, in one embodiment, the system may be permanently locked. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 may further send an alert to the user via an alternative communication method. In one embodiment, the device may be unlocked only by sending a predetermined message to the device through an alternative channel. This ensures that if someone steals the device and obtains or finds an access code, the device remains unusable unless the alternate channel fails. In one embodiment, the alternate channel sends an SMS message to the device, and the computing device 240 provides a one-time unlock code to the user via the alternate communication channel …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DPT into the teachings of XIAO, because it discloses that, “once the mobile device 220 is permanently locked down, the user contacts the controlling authority to provide authentication information and receive / reset the access code. The portable device must be accessible. In one embodiment, if the mobile device shuts down, the user is sent a message over a different communication path, a call is made, or otherwise an access failure is notified. In this embodiment, when the mobile device 220 is locked, the owner will be notified that any unauthorized user will be denied access to use the mobile device (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036])”.
Regarding Claim 8. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach, but DPT from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“further comprising
a monitoring unit that monitors whether there is a possibility that the current user is an unauthorized user based on the second behavior data (DPT, Para [0035 0036]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature logic unit 130 and the calculation logic unit 140 are arranged on the remote calculation device 240 side. In this embodiment, the comparison between the previous gait signature and the new gait data is executed on the computing device 240 side. In one embodiment, if the compared gait signatures do not match, the computing device 240 signals the portable device 220 to lock it. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 or portable device 220 uses an access code so that it can be unlocked. If the entered access code is incorrect, in one embodiment, the system may be permanently locked. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 may further send an alert to the user via an alternative communication method. In one embodiment, the device may be unlocked only by sending a predetermined message to the device through an alternative channel. This ensures that if someone steals the device and obtains or finds an access code, the device remains unusable unless the alternate channel fails. In one embodiment, the alternate channel sends an SMS message to the device, and the computing device 240 provides a one-time unlock code to the user via the alternate communication channel …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DPT into the teachings of XIAO, because it discloses that, “once the mobile device 220 is permanently locked down, the user contacts the controlling authority to provide authentication information and receive / reset the access code. The portable device must be accessible. In one embodiment, if the mobile device shuts down, the user is sent a message over a different communication path, a call is made, or otherwise an access failure is notified. In this embodiment, when the mobile device 220 is locked, the owner will be notified that any unauthorized user will be denied access to use the mobile device (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036])”.
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of XIAO-DPT discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, DPT further discloses, “wherein
the monitoring unit inquires of the current user whether or not to add the personal authentication information in a case where there is a possibility that the current user is the unauthorized user, and when the current user is authenticated as the authorized user by an alternative authentication method, adds the personal authentication information based on the second behavior data (DPT, Para [0035 0036]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature logic unit 130 and the calculation logic unit 140 are arranged on the remote calculation device 240 side. In this embodiment, the comparison between the previous gait signature and the new gait data is executed on the computing device 240 side. In one embodiment, if the compared gait signatures do not match, the computing device 240 signals the portable device 220 to lock it. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 or portable device 220 uses an access code so that it can be unlocked. If the entered access code is incorrect, in one embodiment, the system may be permanently locked. In one embodiment, the computing device 240 may further send an alert to the user via an alternative communication method. In one embodiment, the device may be unlocked only by sending a predetermined message to the device through an alternative channel. This ensures that if someone steals the device and obtains or finds an access code, the device remains unusable unless the alternate channel fails. In one embodiment, the alternate channel sends an SMS message to the device, and the computing device 240 provides a one-time unlock code to the user via the alternate communication channel …).”
The motivation to further combine DPT remains same as in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach, but DPT from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“further comprising:
a generation unit that transmits the first behavior data to a server device, causes the server device to generate the personal authentication information based on the first behavior data, and causes a storage unit included in the server device to store the personal authentication information (DPT, Para [0027-0029]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature is recorded on the device 100 side and is sent to the computing device 240 when bandwidth usage is cheap or usage is low. In one embodiment, this occurs when the device is not in use. In one embodiment, the gait signature is erased from the memory of the device 100 once it has been sent to the computing device 240. In one embodiment, when a gait signature comparison is sought, a previously recorded gait signature is retrieved from the computing device 240 and sent to the portable device 220 for local comparison. In one embodiment, the pace comparison may be performed on the arithmetic device 240 side, and the remaining comparisons may be performed on the device 100 side. In one embodiment, the gait signature comparison is accomplished by the device 100. The identification steps described herein may be distributed in various ways between the portable device 220 and the remote computing device 240 …); and
an authentication unit that transmits the second behavior data to the server device and causes the server device to perform the personal authentication when the execution permission request is accepted (DPT, Para [0027-0029]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature is recorded on the device 100 side and is sent to the computing device 240 when bandwidth usage is cheap or usage is low. In one embodiment, this occurs when the device is not in use. In one embodiment, the gait signature is erased from the memory of the device 100 once it has been sent to the computing device 240. In one embodiment, when a gait signature comparison is sought, a previously recorded gait signature is retrieved from the computing device 240 and sent to the portable device 220 for local comparison. In one embodiment, the pace comparison may be performed on the arithmetic device 240 side, and the remaining comparisons may be performed on the device 100 side. In one embodiment, the gait signature comparison is accomplished by the device 100. The identification steps described herein may be distributed in various ways between the portable device 220 and the remote computing device 240 …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DPT into the teachings of XIAO, because it discloses that, “once the mobile device 220 is permanently locked down, the user contacts the controlling authority to provide authentication information and receive / reset the access code. The portable device must be accessible. In one embodiment, if the mobile device shuts down, the user is sent a message over a different communication path, a call is made, or otherwise an access failure is notified. In this embodiment, when the mobile device 220 is locked, the owner will be notified that any unauthorized user will be denied access to use the mobile device (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036])”.
Regarding Claim 11. XIAO discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach, but DPT from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“further comprising:
a generation unit that generates the personal authentication information based on the first behavior data, sends the personal authentication information to the server device, and causes a storage unit included in the server device to store the personal authentication information (DPT, Para [0027-0029]: … In one embodiment, the gait signature is recorded on the device 100 side and is sent to the computing device 240 when bandwidth usage is cheap or usage is low. In one embodiment, this occurs when the device is not in use. In one embodiment, the gait signature is erased from the memory of the device 100 once it has been sent to the computing device 240. In one embodiment, when a gait signature comparison is sought, a previously recorded gait signature is retrieved from the computing device 240 and sent to the portable device 220 for local comparison. In one embodiment, the pace comparison may be performed on the arithmetic device 240 side, and the remaining comparisons may be performed on the device 100 side. In one embodiment, the gait signature comparison is accomplished by the device 100. The identification steps described herein may be distributed in various ways between the portable device 220 and the remote computing device 240 …); and
an authentication unit that transmits the second behavior data to the server device and causes the server device to perform the personal authentication when the execution permission request is accepted (DPT, Para [0027-0029]: … …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DPT into the teachings of XIAO, because it discloses that, “once the mobile device 220 is permanently locked down, the user contacts the controlling authority to provide authentication information and receive / reset the access code. The portable device must be accessible. In one embodiment, if the mobile device shuts down, the user is sent a message over a different communication path, a call is made, or otherwise an access failure is notified. In this embodiment, when the mobile device 220 is locked, the owner will be notified that any unauthorized user will be denied access to use the mobile device (DPT, Para [0027-0028, 0036])”.
Regarding Claim 12. The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, DPT further discloses,
“wherein
the generation unit causes a storage unit included in an own device to store at least part of the personal authentication information (DPT: Para [0027-0029]: … …), and
the authentication unit performs, when the execution permission request is accepted and access to the server device is not possible, the personal authentication referring the second behavior data to the personal authentication information stored in the storage unit included in the own device (DPT: Para [0027-0029]).”
The motivation to further combine DPT remains same as in claim 10.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200053096 A1; BENDERSKY et al.: BENDERSKY discloses method/system/device to adaptively and dynamically monitoring and managing a proximity status between securely communicating devices. Techniques include identifying a secure connection session established between an endpoint computing resource and an auxiliary computing device associated with a user; receiving real-time proximity data associated with at least one of the user or the auxiliary computing device; receiving proximity data associated with the endpoint computing resource; determining, based on the real-time proximity data associated with at least one of the user or the auxiliary computing device and the proximity data associated with the endpoint computing resource, whether at least one of the auxiliary computing device or the user has left the proximity to the endpoint computing resource; and implementing, based on the determining, an automatic session control action for the secure connection session.
BENDERSKY discloses using Biometric software applications for authenticating a user in terms of physical traits or characteristics. For example, biometric software may be configured to authenticate a user's face, eye retina, voice, saliva, blood, hair, or fingerprint, among other physical features. Further, biometric software may be configured to authenticate a user in terms of patterns or averages of other physical attributes, such as the user's heartrate, walking cadence or speed, typing or clicking activity, cursor movement, gaze detection or eyeball monitoring, chemical (e.g., pheromone) production, application usage frequency or timing, or environmental characteristics, among other factors. In some embodiments, artificial intelligence or machine learning may be used to determine reliable and distinctive physical attributes of a user that may be observed, analyzed, and used for authentication of the user. As discussed further below in connection with FIGS. 20-24, biometric software 204 may further be utilized to determine a location of client computing device 200, motion of client computing device, physical attributes of the user, or a proximity of client computing device to access service and/or an endpoint resource.
US 10216273 B2; Colosimo et al.: Colosimo discloses An apparatus for effecting a control action in respect of a function within a virtual or mixed reality system, the control action corresponding to a predefined bodily movement of an authorized user of said function, wherein an authorized user is defined by a predetermined criterion in respect of a selected body part and/or a passive device carried thereon. The apparatus comprises a detection module for detecting a predefined bodily movement; a multi-spectral imaging system for capturing spectral reflectance and/or emission data at a plurality of wavelengths in respect of said selected body part and/or the passive device carried thereon; and an analysis module for comparing at least a portion of the spectral data with data corresponding to an authorized user of said function to determine if said criterion is met, and outputting a signal to effect said control action only if said criterion is met.
This invention relates generally to an apparatus and method for effecting one or more control actions in respect of system functions and, more particularly, to identifying control actions and verifying the authorisation of a user in respect of a function within a virtual or mixed reality system.
US 20200026831 A1; Alameh et al.: Alameh discloses An electronic device that includes a motion detector operable to detect an at least partially periodic motion of the electronic device. An authentication system operable with the motion detector initiates an authentication process, such as by capturing one or more images or depth scans, to attempt to authenticate a user as an authorized user of the electronic device when the electronic device is most stationary along the at least partially periodic motion.
This disclosure relates generally to electronic devices, and more particularly to electronic devices having sensors.
US 20200320184 A1; Nikitidis et al.: Nikitidis discloses a method of authenticating a user of a user device, the method comprising: receiving motion data captured using a motion sensor of the user device during an interval of motion of the user device induced by the user; processing the motion data to generate a device motion feature vector, inputting the device motion feature vector to a neural network, the neural network having been trained to distinguish between device motion feature vectors captured from different users; and authenticating the user of the user device, by using a resulting vector output of the neural network to determine whether the user-induced device motion matches an expected device motion pattern uniquely associated with an authorized user, the neural network having been trained based on device motion feature vectors captured from a group of training users, which does not include the authorized user.
The invention provides various authentication mechanisms based on device motion, and in particular on a user's ability to replicate, by moving a user device, an expected device motion pattern that is uniquely associated with an authorized user. The characteristics of the device motion pattern that make it unique are referred to herein as “behavioural biometrics”, and the authentication process is ultimately checking for the presence or absence of matching behavioural biometrics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHABUB S AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-0364. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached on (571)272-3811. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHABUB S AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/KAMBIZ ZAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2434