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 Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed on February 6, 2026. Claims 1-17 were previously pending consideration. Per the received amendment, no claims have been cancelled or added.
2. Claims 1-17 are currently pending consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
4. The Applicant argues that the Cited Prior Art (CPA), Dagsgupta et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2016/0359838) in view of Wheeler (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2013/0269010), does not disclose wherein the evaluation result is generated based on an authentication model selected from among a plurality of authentication models according to a situation of the user when the plurality of pieces of authentication information are evaluated. This argument is not found persuasive. Dagsgupta discloses adaptive selection of multiple modalities for authentication in different operating environments (paragraph 0005) using dynamic selection of multi-factor authentication (paragraph 0007). This is analogous to selection among alternative authentication models. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the CPA does not disclose that this selection of an authentication model from among the plurality of authentication models is according to a situation of the user. This argument is also not found persuasive. Dagsgupta discloses the selection of a multi-factor authentication incorporating the environment settings including device, medium, surrounding conditions and the like (analogous to the situation of the user) (paragraph 0007). Therefore, the arguments are not found persuasive and the 103 rejection is applied as provided below.
5. The Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to statutory and patent-eligible subject matter. This argument is not found persuasive. Claim 1 (as a representative claim) discloses evaluating information using authentication models, generating a result, and presenting the result. These fall under the mental process category of abstract ideas as they provide evaluation, judgement and selection. Under the next step of analysis, the claims are not found to have a practical application. The only hardware provided in claim 1 is “circuitry” which is merely a general computing device which is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Under the next step of analysis, the claims are not found to provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim elements of circuitry, evaluation viewpoints, selection of an authentication model, and the presentation of a result, are all well-known and conventional in authentication systems so they provide no inventive concept. Therefore, the arguments are not found persuasive and the 101 rejection is maintained as provided below.
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.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
7. Claim 1 recite(s) an apparatus which is one of the four statutory categories of invention. The apparatus discloses an evaluation unit that evaluates authentication information regarding a user on a basis of viewpoints and an index, and a presentation unit for presenting the evaluation result. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2111). The claim does not provide any details about how the evaluation unit evaluates the viewpoints or the index, and the plain meaning of “evaluates” encompasses mental observations or evaluations (e.g., an administrator’s mental identification of acceptable authentication information and present the results. The claim does not limit how the authentication information is evaluated or how it is presented, and there are no additional details that explain the processing or evaluating of the information. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the evaluation unit and the presentation processing unit falls within the metal process grouping of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a mental process and is directed towards an abstract idea of evaluating data and rendering a decision about the strength of the authentication data based on criteria.
There is no recitation of additional elements in claim 1 which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Presenting an evaluation result to the user is extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The evaluation unit that evaluates a plurality of pieces of information regarding a user based on a plurality of viewpoints and the presentation unit that presents the result to the user are both generally applying the abstract idea to the data as they do not provide any details about how the evaluation or processing is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites generic functions such as evaluating and presenting. The use of evaluation viewpoints and an index for the viewpoints are generic markers which can be used to determine the strength of authentication information and does not result in significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim also recites presenting the evaluation result but this is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not provide a meaningful limitation on processing the data.
The dependent claims do not recite any additional steps that individually or in combination with the inherited limitations of claim 1 amount to significantly more.
Claims 2-4 merely define the viewpoint. Claims 5-7 merely define the index. Claim 8 and 9 merely state that the evaluation unit evaluates the authentication information on the basis of the viewpoints and the index. Claim 10 defines the presentation method without providing any details. Claim 11 discloses registering the authentication information which is not a meaningful limitation. Claim 12 discloses the classification of the authentication information which does not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 disclose that the modal is selected by the user and claim 15 discloses that the registration unit learns an authentication model based on the authentication information which is simply implementing the abstract idea using a model.
Independent claims and 17 are method and program claims analogous to claim 1 and both do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they recite limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2016/0359838) in view of Wheeler (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2013/0269010).
Regarding claim 1, Dagsgupta discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
evaluate a plurality of pieces of authentication information regarding a user based on a plurality of evaluation viewpoints and an index for each of the evaluation viewpoints to generate an evaluation result (paragraph 0029: the system evaluates and selects specific features of authentication modalities that have higher trustworthy values);
wherein the evaluation result is generated based on an authentication model selected from among a plurality of authentication models according to a situation of the user when the plurality of pieces of information are evaluated (paragraph 0005: adaptive selection of multiple modalities for authentication in different operating environments; paragraph 0007: using dynamic selection of multi-factor authentication (analogous to selection among alternative authentication models); paragraph 0007: selection of a multi-factor authentication incorporating the environment settings including device, medium, surrounding conditions and the like (analogous to the situation of the user)).
Dasgupta does not explicitly disclose a presentation processing unit that performs processing for presenting an evaluation result by the evaluation unit to the user. In an analogous art, Wheeler discloses providing feedback to users to indicate the relative strength of a password (paragraph 0015 0030). It would have been obvious to combine the presentation unit (feedback) of Wheeler with the system of Dasgupta to assist users in finding stronger authentication information (Wheeler: paragraph 0015).
Claim 2 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation viewpoint is security (paragraph 0029: avoiding repetition of static authentication factors, the system is less predictable and increases security).
Claim 3 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation viewpoint is privacy (paragraph 0019: the authentication factors take into consideration the environment (e.g., public gatherings would not be good for voice recognition).
Claim 4 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation viewpoint is usability (paragraph 0019: the authentication factors take into consideration the environment (e.g., public gatherings would not be good for voice recognition).
Claim 5 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 2. Furthermore, Wheeler discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the index for the security includes authentication strength and resistance to an attack from another person (paragraph 0015 0030: strength of password).
Claim 6 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 3. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the index for privacy is a need for a modal and a description of input data to be utilized (paragraph 0019: the authentication factors take into consideration the environment (e.g., public gatherings would not be good for voice recognition).
Claim 7 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 4. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the index for the usability includes an error rate, stability, and cost (paragraph 0020: biometrics suffer from compilation errors).
Claim 8 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry evaluates the authentication information based on any one or more of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints (paragraph 0029: the system evaluates and selects specific features of authentication modalities that have higher trustworthy values).
Claim 9 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry evaluates the authentication information based on one or a plurality of indexes in the evaluation viewpoint (paragraph 0029: the system evaluates and selects specific features of authentication modalities that have higher trustworthy values).
Claim 10 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Wheeler discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to convert the evaluation result into information for a predetermined presentation method (Wheeler: paragraph 0015: feedback).
Claim 11 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to register the authentication information based on an agreement of the user who has confirmed the evaluation result processed and presented to the user (paragraph 0027: motion profiles for registered users).
Claim 12 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the authentication information is classified into any of a plurality of types of information defined as a modal (paragraph 0005: selection of multiple modalities for authentication in different operating environments).
Claim 13 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 12. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the modal is selected by the user (paragraph 0007: modalities determined by user preference).
Claim 14 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 13. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the modal is selected by the user who has confirmed the evaluation result regarding the presented predetermined authentication information (paragraph 0007: modalities determined by user preference).
Claim 15 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 11. Furthermore, Dasgupta discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry is further configured to learn each authentication model based on the plurality of pieces of authentication information (paragraph 0027: motion profiles for registered users).
Regarding claim 16, Dasgupta discloses:
An information processing method, executed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
performing processing for evaluating a plurality of pieces of authentication information regarding a user based on a plurality of viewpoints and an index for each of the viewpoints to generate an evaluation result (paragraph 0029: the system evaluates and selects specific features of authentication modalities that have higher trustworthy values); and
wherein the evaluation result is generated based on an authentication model selected from among a plurality of authentication models according to a situation of the suer when the plurality of pieces of authentication information are evaluated (paragraph 0005: adaptive selection of multiple modalities for authentication in different operating environments; paragraph 0007: using dynamic selection of multi-factor authentication (analogous to selection among alternative authentication models); paragraph 0007: selection of a multi-factor authentication incorporating the environment settings including device, medium, surrounding conditions and the like (analogous to the situation of the user)).
Dasgupta does not explicitly disclose presenting an evaluation result to the user. In an analogous art, Wheeler discloses providing feedback to users to indicate the relative strength of a password (paragraph 0015 0030). It would have been obvious to combine the presentation unit (feedback) of Wheeler with the system of Dasgupta to assist users in finding stronger authentication information (Wheeler: paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 17, Dasgupta discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute an information processing method, the method comprising:
performing processing for evaluating a plurality of pieces of authentication information regarding a user based on a plurality of viewpoints and an index for each of the viewpoints to generate an evaluation result (paragraph 0029: the system evaluates and selects specific features of authentication modalities that have higher trustworthy values); and
wherein the evaluation result is generated based on an authentication model selected from among a plurality of authentication models according to a situation of the user when the plurality of pieces of authentication information are evaluated (paragraph 0005: adaptive selection of multiple modalities for authentication in different operating environments; paragraph 0007: using dynamic selection of multi-factor authentication (analogous to selection among alternative authentication models); paragraph 0007: selection of a multi-factor authentication incorporating the environment settings including device, medium, surrounding conditions and the like (analogous to the situation of the user)).
Dasgupta does not explicitly disclose presenting an evaluation result to the user. In an analogous art, Wheeler discloses providing feedback to users to indicate the relative strength of a password (paragraph 0015 0030). It would have been obvious to combine the presentation unit (feedback) of Wheeler with the system of Dasgupta to assist users in finding stronger authentication information (Wheeler: paragraph 0015).
Conclusion
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 KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
02/27/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494