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 .
1. This is in response to the amendment filed on 19 February 2026.
2. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 12-17 have been rejected.
4. Claims 4-6, 10 and 11 have been objected to.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 and 12-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 2, 12-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miu US 2019/0042719 A1.
As to claim 1, Miu discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions [0087]; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to [0087]:
acquire an authentication request including biological information of a service provider as a target person for authentication (i.e. the patient can use the patient device to capture biometric information of the service provider, the representation of the service provider’s biometric can include face, fingerprint, voice print or image of iris or retina) [0073] from a first terminal utilized by a service recipient (i.e. the service recipient is the patient and the first terminal would be the patient device) [0073] as a desiring person different from the target person (i.e. the target person is the service provider) [0073]; and
notifies notify the first terminal of a result of authenticating the target person by using the biological information (i.e. the positive verification) [0074].
As to claim 2, Miu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, the processor configured further to execute the instructions to:
authenticate the target person by using the biological information (i.e. the patient can use the patient device to capture biometric information of the service provider, the representation of the service provider’s biometric can include face, fingerprint, voice print or image of iris or retina) [0073], wherein
notifying the first terminal of the result of authentication is (i.e. the positive verification) [0074], when a previously determined execution condition is satisfied (i.e. the server verifies the identity of the service provider) [0073].
As to claim 12, Miu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the authentication request further includes personal identification information for identifying the target person (i.e. the patient can use the patient device to capture biometric information of the service provider, the representation of the service provider’s biometric can include face, fingerprint, voice print or image of iris or retina) [0073], and
authenticating the target person is executed by further using the personal identification information (i.e. the server verifies the identity of the service provider using the biometric data) [0073].
As to claim 13, Miu discloses an information processing system comprising:
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e. the patient device) [0073]; and
the first terminal (i.e. the provider device) [0073] that transmits and receives data to and from the information processing apparatus each other (i.e. the using cross-verification) [0073], wherein
the first terminal includes
a memory configured to store instructions [0087]; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to [0087]
acquire biological information of the target person (i.e. capture patient’s identification document or biometric information) [0062], transmit the authentication request including the acquired biological information to the information processing apparatus (i.e. patient fingerprint, voice print or iris or retina data) [0062],
acquire a result of authenticating the target person from the information processing apparatus (i.e. sending data that indicates whether the identification is authentic) [0063], and
display the acquired result [0085].
As to claim 14, Miu discloses the information processing system according to claim 13, wherein
the first terminal (i.e. provider device) [0062] further includes
a sensor that generates biological information of the target person (i.e. capturing biometric information of the patient) [0062], and
the processor included in the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to [0087]
generate the authentication request including the generated biological information (i.e. authentication request with the biometric information of the patient) [0062], and
transmit the generated authentication request to the information processing apparatus [0063].
As to claim 16, Miu discloses an information processing method comprising,
by a computer [0042]:
acquiring an authentication request including biological information of a service provider as a target person for authentication (i.e. the patient can use the patient device to capture biometric information of the service provider, the representation of the service provider’s biometric can include face, fingerprint, voice print or image of iris or retina) [0073] from a first terminal utilized by a service recipient (i.e. the service recipient is the patient and the first terminal would be the patient device) [0073] as a desiring person different from the target person (i.e. the target person is the service provider) [0073]; and
notifying the first terminal of a result of authenticating the target person by using the biological information (i.e. the positive verification) [0074].
As to claim 17, Miu discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute:
acquiring an authentication request including biological information of a service provider as a target person for authentication (i.e. the patient can use the patient device to capture biometric information of the service provider, the representation of the service provider’s biometric can include face, fingerprint, voice print or image of iris or retina) [0073] from a first terminal utilized by a desiring person different from a service recipient (i.e. the service recipient is the patient and the first terminal would be the patient device) [0073] as the target person (i.e. the target person is the service provider) [0073]; and
notifying the first terminal of a result of authenticating the target person by using the biological information (i.e. the positive verification) [0074].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miu US 2019/0042719 A1 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wei et al US 2020/0169387 A1 (hereinafter Wei).
As to claim 3, Miu teaches authenticating the target person by using the biological information (i.e. facial or fingerprint biometrics can be compared for a match) [0088].
Miu does not teach that the execution condition includes a matter that there is an agreement of the target person to the authentication request. Miu does not teach that authenticating the target person includes transmitting, to a second terminal utilized by the target person, confirmation of whether to agree to the authentication request.
Wei teaches that the execution condition includes a matter that there is an agreement of the target person to the authentication request (i.e. agreement from the merchant) [0090]. Wei teaches that authenticating the target person includes transmitting, to a second terminal utilized by the target person, confirmation of whether to agree to the authentication request (i.e. authorization confirmation that indicates that the merchant agrees to the authorization request) [0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu so that the execution condition would have included a matter that there was an agreement of the target person to the authentication request. Authenticating the target person would have included transmitting, to a second terminal utilized by the target person, confirmation of whether to agree to the authentication request.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu by the teaching of Wei because it provides openness and trustworthiness that is applicable to a plurality of application scenarios requiring high data reliability [0003].
8. Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miu US 2019/0042719 A1 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Streit US 2020/0004939 A1.
As to claim 7, Miu does not teach that the execution condition includes a previously set permission condition regarding the target person. Miu does not teach notifying the first terminal of the result of authentication is executed, when the permission condition is satisfied.
Streit teaches that the execution condition includes a previously set permission condition regarding the target person (i.e. rules or permissions previously granted to the user) [0035]. Streit teaches notifying the first terminal of the result of authentication is executed, when the permission condition is satisfied (i.e. by granting access) [0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu so that the execution condition would have included a previously set permission condition regarding the target person. The first terminal would have been notified of the result of authentication was executed, when the permission condition was satisfied.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu by the teaching of Streit because it helps prevent access to unauthorized parties [0002].
As to claim 8, Miu teaches authenticating the target person by using the biological information (i.e. facial or fingerprint biometrics can be compared for a match) [0088].
Miu does not teach a condition storage for storing condition information indicating the permission condition.
Streit teaches a condition storage for storing condition information indicating the permission condition (i.e. database of information pertaining to a user) [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu so that there would have been a condition storage for storing condition information indicating the permission condition.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu by the teaching of Streit because it helps prevent access to unauthorized parties [0002].
9. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miu US 2019/0042719 A1 and Streit US 2020/0004939 A1 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mizuta et al US 2023/0421560 A1 (hereinafter Mizuta).
As to claim 9, the Miu-Streit combination teaches authenticating the target person by using the biological information (i.e. facial or fingerprint biometrics can be compared for a match) [Miu 0088].
The Miu-Streit combination does not teach authenticating the target person includes inquiring a second terminal utilized by the target person about the permission condition, when the authentication request is acquired from the first terminal.
Mizuta teaches authenticating the target person includes inquiring a second terminal utilized by the target person about the permission condition, when the authentication request is acquired from the first terminal (i.e. the terminal of another person supplies the inquiry information including the certification information to the permission apparatus) [0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the Miu-Streit combination so that authenticating the target person would have included inquiring a second terminal utilized by the target person about the permission condition, when the authentication request was acquired from the first terminal.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the Miu-Streit combination by the teaching of Mizuta because it provides a method to provide certification information [0011].
10. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miu US 2019/0042719 A1 and as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hsu et al US 2014/0075570 A1 (hereinafter Hsu).
As to claim 15, Miu does not teach a third terminal that further generates biological information of the target person, and transmits the generated biological information to the first terminal. Miu does not teach that the processor included in the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the biological information of the target person from the third terminal.
Hsu teaches a third terminal that further generates biological information of the target person, and transmits the generated biological information to the first terminal (i.e. another electronic device that creates the set of biometric data of the authorized user and then share the set of data with the electronic device) [0022]. Hsu teaches that the processor included in the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the biological information of the target person from the third terminal [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu so that there would have been a third terminal that further generated biological information of the target person, and transmitted the generated biological information to the first terminal. The processor would have included in the first terminal was configured to execute the instructions to acquire the biological information of the target person from the third terminal.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Miu by the teaching of Hsu because it helps protect a set of private data of an authorized user [0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 4-6, 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 4, the prior art does not disclose teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “the execution condition includes a previously set permission condition regarding the target person, and a matter that there is an agreement of the target person to the authentication request” and “notifying the first terminal of the result of authentication is executed, when a response indicating an agreement to the authentication request is acquired from the second terminal and the permission condition is satisfied”.
As to claim 11, the prior art does not disclose teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “the authentication request further includes a current position of the first terminal”, “authenticating the target person includes extracting based on master information that associates master biological information being biological information of a registrant with position information of the registrant, the registrant for whom a current position of the first terminal and the position information have a previously determined relationship” and “authenticating the target person by using the master biological information of the extracted registrant and the biological information”.
Any claims not directly addressed are objected to on the virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Prior Art
12. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Nair US 2020/0389451 A1 directed to biometric authentication during voice data transfers [abstract].
B. Harding US 2016/0226868 A1 directed to enabling out of band biometric verification [abstract].
C. Chang et al US 2017/0171195 A1 directed to biometric authentication utilizing a dynamically updated biometric template derived from social media content of a user [abstract].
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407