Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission filed on October 31, 2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 31, 2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on October 31, 2024 have been accepted. The drawings were searched for informalities.
Specification
The specification filed on October 31, 2024 has been accepted. The specification was searched for informalities.
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.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 is drawn to a system that is defined in part by a program causing a computer to function as a control unit. The claim represents merely a software without any hardware that is communicably coupled to an application on a client device which is not part of the system being claimed. A software/computer program is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. A software/computer program is not a combination of substances and therefore not a compilation of matter. Thus, a software/computer program by itself does not fall within any of the four categories of invention. Therefore, Claim 17 is not statutory.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The following is Examiner’s analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG):
STEP 1 Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-15) recite an information processing device (machine), claim 16 recites an information processing method (process), claim 17 recites a program (software).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claims 1, 16, and 17 each recites the steps of “processing of calculating a target authentication score based on a habitual score calculated based on an activity of a user and habitual information of the user, and a use occasion score calculated based on a target use history of the user; and processing of determining based on the target authentication score whether authentication at a target succeeds or fails”, which fall within the “Mental Processes” 2019 PEG grouping as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Each of the steps of defining parameters and defining actions is a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, therefore, the claimed limitations falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites additional elements including “a control unit that performs” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, therefore the claim as a whole is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claims 2-15 further describe the types of data and operations, therefore they do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception? Claims 2-15 further describe the types of data and operations; Claim 1 recites additional elements including “a control unit that performs”, Claim 16 recites using a processor (“at a processor”), Claim 17 recites using of computer (“causing a computer to function as a control unit that performs”), which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. These additional elements comprise well-understood, routine, conventional computing elements (see BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F .3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) holding recites generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself) see also Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21706 at 14 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) finding “Nothing in the claims or their constructions, including the use of “intermediate computers,” requires anything other than conventional computer and network components operating according to their ordinary functions”, see also “simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one.” Accenture Global Service v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) at 1345; see also the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment (see Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191; “attempts to limit the abstract concept to a computer implementation and to a specific industry thus do not provide additional substantive limitations to avoid preempting the abstract idea of [the] system” Accenture Global Service v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); Classen as an example case identifying a mental process. Specifically, "[c]oncepts relating to data comparisons that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), sections III and III A. Therefore, the additionally recited limitations individually or in combination as a whole in Claims 1-20 fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-17 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses: An information processing device comprising
a control unit that performs: processing of calculating a target authentication score (“a risk analyzer configured to calculate a current risk score for the user based on the collected risk factors and calculate a total risk score based on a risk score history of the user and the current risk score” [0010] [Examiner notes that the total risk score (target authentication score) is a combined score used for the final authentication decision. The use occasion score is effectively the current risk score since the current risk score already incorporates the historical usage across users and then it is combined with the habitual score to form the total/target score])
based on a habitual score calculated based on an activity of a user and habitual information of the user (“The risk factors may include at least one from among data related to an authentication activity of the user, data related to the client device, and data related to authentication factors used in the one or more authentication processes. The risk analyzer may be further configured to calculate the total risk score using a sum of weights of the current risk score and past risk scores included in the risk score history” [0011-0012] [Examiner notes that the risk factor data related to an authentication activity of the user directly corresponds to activity of the user and behavioral information (habitual score)]), and
a use occasion score calculated based on a target use history of the user (“The risk analyzer may be further configured to calculate the current risk score using the risk factors related to the currently performed authentication processes, and at least one from among risk factors related to authentication processes previously performed for the user and risk factors related to authentication processes previously performed for a plurality of users” [0016] [Examiner notes that this text describes historical authentication events and use history across users which corresponds to target history of users. Examiner notes that the risk factors derived from authentication processes previously performed for a plurality of users (which are used by the risk analyzer when calculating the risk score) is being interpreted as the use occasion score]); and
processing of determining based on the target authentication score whether authentication at a target succeeds or fails (“The requesting for the additional authentication may include requesting the client device for the additional authentication of the user based on the current risk score exceeding a first threshold or the total risk score exceeding a second threshold” [0025] [Examiner notes that this text discloses processing that determines an authentication outcomes based on a calculated score. Specifically, the risk analyzer calculates a total risk score based on the current risk score and the risk score history of the user. The system then determines whether additional authentication of the user is required based on the current risk score and the total risk score, including determining whether the total risk score exceeds a threshold. When the total risk score exceeds a threshold, the system requests additional authentication, whereas when the total risk score does not exceed the threshold, authenticated processed without requiring further verification. Thus, the system uses the total calculated score to determine whether the authentication attempt is accepted or not]).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of relatively increasing a weight to be multiplied on the use occasion score compared to a weight to be multiplied on the habitual score to calculate the authentication score when the habitual score goes below a threshold (“Specifically, the risk analyzer 520 may calculate the total risk score by using, for example, the following Equation 1. St=α(S c −S mean) [Equation 1] In Equation 1, St denotes a total risk score, Sc denotes a current risk score, Smean denotes the mean of past risk scores calculated recently for a predetermined period of time, and α denotes a weighted value. In the case where the previous risk scores, calculated recently for a predetermined period of time, are maintained at a constant level without a significant fluctuations, the risk analyzer 520 may set the weighted value α to be a high value; and in the case where the past risk scores, calculated recently for a predetermined period of time, are changed irregularly, the risk analyzer 520 may set the weighted value α to be a low value” [0145-0146] [Examiner notes that the risk analyzer 520 functions as the control unit, performing the calculation/processing of the weight. The text shows that the weights a can be adjusted higher depending on conditions (showing increasing the weight). Smean represents the habitual score and the adjustment a is relative to the level of Smean. St is the final score calculated using the weighted current score and the habitual score, analogous to the authentication score]).
Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1, in the form of an information processing method for implementing the corresponding information processing device, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1, in the form of a program for implementing the corresponding information processing device, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of US 12275371 B2 to Matsuzawa et al. (hereinafter, “Matsuzawa”).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the system of claim 1.
Park does not disclose: wherein the control unit changes a threshold used for the determination on whether the authentication succeeds or fails according to a user input.
However, Matsuzawa discloses: wherein the control unit changes a threshold used for the determination on whether the authentication succeeds or fails according to a user input (“In the fourth embodiment, the gait authentication threshold determination unit 218 outputs a user interface related to the change of the gait authentication threshold when the gait authentication fails, and is based on the user's instruction input in this user interface. Therefore, the gait authentication threshold is adjusted in the direction of increasing the tolerance rate (avoiding failure of continuous authentication). FIG. 11 is an example of a series of user interfaces related to the change of the gait authentication threshold value displayed on the information processing terminal. FIG. 11 shows a watch-type wearable device as the information processing terminal 10, but the information processing terminal 10 is not limited to this” [Col. 23, lines 18-30]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the added structure of Matsuzawa in order for the user to be able to efficiently control and adjust thresholds under certain circumstances.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of JP 2017/134750 A to Kota et al. (hereinafter, “Kota”).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the system of claim 1.
Park does not disclose: wherein the control unit changes a parameter used for the calculation of the use occasion score according to a user input.
However, Kota discloses: wherein the control unit changes a parameter used for the calculation of the use occasion score according to a user input (“(About the authentication unit 133)
The authentication unit 133 authenticates the user based on the learning result learned by the learning unit 132 and the input information related to the user's behavior. Specifically, the authentication unit 133 authenticates the user based on the weight of elements forming a model indicating the user's characteristics as a learning result and the input information. For example, the authentication unit 133 authenticates the user based on the weight of the element corrected based on the user's action schedule and the input information. In other words, the authentication device 100 performs user authentication by dynamically changing the element weight according to the user's situation. Here, the weights of the elements are not the same every time because the action history is sequentially accumulated even for the same user. For this reason, the authentication unit 133 adjusts the weight for each element according to the reliability of the element. For example, the authentication unit 133 adjusts the weight of an element to be low, assuming that the more likely the element is, the lower the reliability. On the other hand, the authentication unit 133 adjusts the weight of an element higher, assuming that the element that is less likely to change has higher reliability. As an example, elements that tend to fluctuate and elements that do not fluctuate are determined by dividing learning data every several periods and calculating an average or variance for each weight. In addition, a user's action schedule is acquired from a user's scheduler, the content of an email, etc., for example. As an example, the authentication unit 133 authenticates the user based on the weight of the element corrected based on a predetermined action preset in the user's action schedule and the input information. Here, the predetermined action set in advance has a short-term effect such as travel, participation in an event, anniversary event, action at the time of disaster or weather change, moving, and model of the terminal device 10 Examples include long-term effects such as changes, childbirth, job changes, school transfers, transfers, and hospital discharges. As one aspect, the authentication unit 133 authenticates the user based on the weight of the element corrected based on the information input to the user's schedule as the user's action schedule and the input information. For example, the authentication unit 133 corrects the weight of an element corresponding to the place where the user stays to “0” when information related to a travel or business trip schedule is input in the user's schedule. In other words, the authentication unit 133 flexibly attaches and detaches elements that form a model indicating the user characteristics, reflecting the future schedule of the user. That is, the authentication unit 133 performs user authentication by excluding elements that are presumed to be abnormal in the future. This is because a very rare place of stay for the user to be authenticated is exceptionally treated as noise to improve authentication accuracy” [0039-0040] [Examiner notes that this reference discloses that the authentication unit evaluated a user based on a model of the user's characteristics, where the model includes multiple elements with associated weights. These weights function as parameters that influence how the system evaluated the user. The reference teaches that the weights can be modified based on user-provided information, such as action schedules, travel plans, or other inputs, for example by reducing or excluding elements corresponding to rare or planned locations. Since the use occasion score is calculated based on evaluating the user's characteristics for a specific context and these weights directly impact that evaluation, modifying the weights based on user input directly changes the calculation of the use occasion score]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the added structure of Kota in order for the system to be able to efficiently control and adjust parameters used for the authentication score under certain circumstances.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of JP 2011/059837 A to Nakano et al. (hereinafter, “Nakano”).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the system of claim 1.
Park does not disclose: wherein the control unit performs processing of displaying on a map image a determination result on whether authentication at each target succeeds or fails.
However, Nakano discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of displaying on a map image a determination result on whether authentication at each target succeeds or fails (“Next, the map image corresponding to each of the acquired behavior history information is acquired from the map image information table 2012, and the authentication information is generated in the format shown in FIG. 9 from the acquired map image and information on "When," the acquired map image and behavior history information is "what is" (step S202). The method of acquiring a map image is acquired by searching a map image satisfying the following (Expression 1) and (Expression 2) based on the position of the behavior history information acquired in the processing (step S201). Position: the value of the latitude (south side) 2012 b ≤ the position (latitude) of the action history information: the value of the latitude (north side) 2012 c (number 1) In addition, Position: Longitude (West side) 2012 d ≤ Position (longitude) ≤ Position of Action History Information: Longitude (East side) 2012 e (Expression 2)” [0050] [Examiner notes that this text shows a map image corresponding to each acquired action history information is acquired from the map image information table 2012 and used in the authentication process. This shows that the system uses a map image as the display medium. This text also states that the authentication information is generated in the format shown and is associated with the map image. Since authentication information includes the evaluation of the user (success/failure) for each action history (each target), this demonstrates that authentication results are tied to each target on the map. Each map image corresponds to an individual action history item which matches the "per target" requirement in the limitation]) and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the added structure of Nakano in order for the system to be able to efficiently illustrate the authentication results at each location.
Claims 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of JP 2011/059837 A to Nakano et al. (hereinafter, “Nakano”) and in further view of US 12275371 B2 to Matsuzawa et al. (hereinafter, “Matsuzawa”).
Regarding claim 5, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park does not disclose: wherein the control unit performs processing of further displaying a target authentication score calculated per target, and
However, Nakano discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of further displaying a target authentication score calculated per target (“Next, the map image corresponding to each of the acquired behavior history information is acquired from the map image information table 2012, and the authentication information is generated in the format shown in FIG. 9 from the acquired map image and information on "When," the acquired map image and behavior history information is "what is" (step S202). The method of acquiring a map image is acquired by searching a map image satisfying the following (Expression 1) and (Expression 2) based on the position of the behavior history information acquired in the processing (step S201). Position: the value of the latitude (south side) 2012 b ≤ the position (latitude) of the action history information: the value of the latitude (north side) 2012 c (number 1) In addition, Position: Longitude (West side) 2012 d ≤ Position (longitude) ≤ Position of Action History Information: Longitude (East side) 2012 e (Expression 2)” [0050] [Examiner notes that this text shows a map image corresponding to each acquired action history information is acquired from the map image information table 2012 and used in the authentication process. This shows that the system uses a map image as the display medium. This text also states that the authentication information is generated in the format shown and is associated with the map image. Since authentication information includes the evaluation of the user (success/failure) for each action history (each target), this demonstrates that authentication results are tied to each target on the map and the authentication information is being interpreted as including the target authentication score. Each map image corresponds to an individual action history item which matches the "per target" requirement in the limitation]), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the added structure of Nakano in order for the system to be able to efficiently illustrate the authentication results at each location.
Park-Nakano do not disclose: a threshold used for the determination on whether the authentication succeeds or fails.
However, Matsuzawa discloses: a threshold used for the determination on whether the authentication succeeds or fails (“When the gait authentication fails several times, as illustrated in the left diagram of FIG. 11 , a fact 150 that the gait authentication has failed and a prompt (user interface) including an input screen 151 prompting input of an alternative authentication means are displayed on a display device 134A. Illustrated in FIG. 11 is a case where a PIN is used as the alternative authentication means. This PIN is a password that only the user knows. When a predetermined PIN is input on the input screen 151, as illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 11 , a prompt (user interface) including an input screen 152 inquiring whether or not to change the settings to facilitate the success of the gait authentication is displayed on the display device 134A. Here, on the input screen 152, in a case where the user agrees (selects Yes) to change the settings, the gait authentication threshold value determining unit 218 sets the gait authentication threshold value to be small and raises the acceptance rate. Then, as illustrated in the right diagram of FIG. 11 , a user interface including a screen 153 indicating that the settings have been changed is displayed on the display device 134A. In this configuration, on the basis of the input operation (instruction) of the user to the prompt (user interface) displayed on the display device 134A, the gait authentication threshold value determining unit 218 sets the gait authentication threshold value to be small to raise the acceptance rate, and thus the gait authentication is facilitated to succeed, and as a result, the user experience can be improved. Note that, in the state illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 11 , in a case where the user does not agree to change the settings (selects No), the processing is terminated” [Col. 23, lines 31-61] [Examiner notes that the threshold that is used for the determination is displayed during the user editing process]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Matsuzawa in order for the system to be able to efficiently illustrate the authentication results with the threshold at each location.
Regarding claim 8, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park-Nakano do not disclose: wherein the control unit performs processing of displaying a screen for accepting adjustment of the user for the threshold used for the determination on whether the authentication succeeds or fails.
However, Matsuzawa discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of displaying a screen for accepting adjustment of the user for the threshold used for the determination on whether the authentication succeeds or fails (“When the gait authentication fails several times, as illustrated in the left diagram of FIG. 11 , a fact 150 that the gait authentication has failed and a prompt (user interface) including an input screen 151 prompting input of an alternative authentication means are displayed on a display device 134A. Illustrated in FIG. 11 is a case where a PIN is used as the alternative authentication means. This PIN is a password that only the user knows. When a predetermined PIN is input on the input screen 151, as illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 11 , a prompt (user interface) including an input screen 152 inquiring whether or not to change the settings to facilitate the success of the gait authentication is displayed on the display device 134A. Here, on the input screen 152, in a case where the user agrees (selects Yes) to change the settings, the gait authentication threshold value determining unit 218 sets the gait authentication threshold value to be small and raises the acceptance rate. Then, as illustrated in the right diagram of FIG. 11 , a user interface including a screen 153 indicating that the settings have been changed is displayed on the display device 134A. In this configuration, on the basis of the input operation (instruction) of the user to the prompt (user interface) displayed on the display device 134A, the gait authentication threshold value determining unit 218 sets the gait authentication threshold value to be small to raise the acceptance rate, and thus the gait authentication is facilitated to succeed, and as a result, the user experience can be improved. Note that, in the state illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 11 , in a case where the user does not agree to change the settings (selects No), the processing is terminated” [Col. 23, lines 31-61]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Matsuzawa in order for the user to be able to efficiently control and adjust thresholds under certain circumstances.
Regarding claim 9, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park-Nakano do not disclose: wherein the control unit performs processing of displaying a screen for accepting adjustment of the user for the parameter used for the calculation of the use occasion score.
However, Matsuzawa discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of displaying a screen for accepting adjustment of the user for the parameter used for the calculation of the use occasion score (“When the gait authentication fails several times, as illustrated in the left diagram of FIG. 11 , a fact 150 that the gait authentication has failed and a prompt (user interface) including an input screen 151 prompting input of an alternative authentication means are displayed on a display device 134A. Illustrated in FIG. 11 is a case where a PIN is used as the alternative authentication means. This PIN is a password that only the user knows. When a predetermined PIN is input on the input screen 151, as illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 11 , a prompt (user interface) including an input screen 152 inquiring whether or not to change the settings to facilitate the success of the gait authentication is displayed on the display device 134A. Here, on the input screen 152, in a case where the user agrees (selects Yes) to change the settings, the gait authentication threshold value determining unit 218 sets the gait authentication threshold value to be small and raises the acceptance rate. Then, as illustrated in the right diagram of FIG. 11 , a user interface including a screen 153 indicating that the settings have been changed is displayed on the display device 134A. In this configuration, on the basis of the input operation (instruction) of the user to the prompt (user interface) displayed on the display device 134A, the gait authentication threshold value determining unit 218 sets the gait authentication threshold value to be small to raise the acceptance rate, and thus the gait authentication is facilitated to succeed, and as a result, the user experience can be improved. Note that, in the state illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 11 , in a case where the user does not agree to change the settings (selects No), the processing is terminated” [Col. 23, lines 31-61] [Examiner notes that this text shows the action of displaying a screen in order for the user to accept a user input adjustment making this limitation not novel]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Matsuzawa in order for the user to be able to efficiently control and adjust parameters under certain circumstances.
Regarding claim 10, a combination of Park-Nakano-Matsuzawa discloses the system of claim 9.
Park further discloses: wherein a target score based on the target use history is used for the calculation of the use occasion score, and the parameter is a weight to be used for calculation of the target score and set to a target layer (“The risk analyzer may be further configured to calculate the current risk score using the risk factors related to the currently performed authentication processes, and at least one from among risk factors related to authentication processes previously performed for the user and risk factors related to authentication processes previously performed for a plurality of users” [0016] [Examiner notes that this text describes historical authentication events and use history across users which corresponds to target history of users. Examiner notes that the risk factors derived from authentication processes previously performed for a plurality of users (which are used by the risk analyzer when calculating the risk score) is being interpreted as the use occasion score]; “The risk factor collector 510 collects risk factors related to one or more authentication processes performed at the authentication system 100 for user authentication. In this case, the risk factors may be collected by, for example, the client device 100 in each authentication process and then transmitted to the authentication service system 120, or may be collected from the authentication servers 130” [0123]; “While FIG. 3 illustrates an example of using a fingerprint and an OTP as authentication factors in each authentication process for user authentication, and FIG. 4 illustrates an example of using a fingerprint, an OTP, and a PIN as authentication factors in each authentication process for user authentication, authentication factors and methods used in each authentication process are not necessarily limited to the examples illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4. That is, in the embodiments of the present disclosure, examples of authentication factors, which may be used in each authentication process for user authentication, may include various authentication factors such as iris, voice, ID/password, and the like, in addition to the authentication factors such as fingerprint, OTP, and PIN illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4; and authentication schemes performed in each authentication process may vary depending on authentication factors” [0119] [Examiner notes that this text show risk factors that correspond to different authentication factor types such as fingerprint, OTP, PIN, and iris authentication. The authentication factor types represent groupings of targets that function as layers in the risk evaluation. The current risk score calculation applies weights to the respective factors which produces weighted factor values reflecting the influence of each authentication factor type. These weighted values contribute to the calculation of the current risk score and therefore correspond to target scores used in calculating the use occasion score (the weights are applied to the respective authentication factor types correspond to the claimed parameter set to the target layer)]).
Regarding claim 11, a combination of Park-Nakano-Matsuzawa discloses the system of claim 9.
Park further discloses: wherein the parameter is a weight to be multiplied on the use occasion score for calculation of the authentication score (“Specifically, the risk analyzer 520 may calculate the total risk score by using, for example, the following Equation 1.
St=α(S c −S mean) [Equation 1] In Equation 1, St denotes a total risk score, Sc denotes a current risk score, Smean denotes the mean of past risk scores calculated recently for a predetermined period of time, and α denotes a weighted value. In the case where the previous risk scores, calculated recently for a predetermined period of time, are maintained at a constant level without a significant fluctuations, the risk analyzer 520 may set the weighted value α to be a high value; and in the case where the past risk scores, calculated recently for a predetermined period of time, are changed irregularly, the risk analyzer 520 may set the weighted value α to be a low value” [0145-0146] [Examiner notes that the text illustrates an equation 1 that shows the total risk score St is calculated using the current risk score Sc (which corresponds to the use occasion score) and a weighted value a. The weight a is applied directly to the current risk score component, effectively multiplying it to contribute to the authentication score]).
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of JP 2011/059837 A to Nakano et al. (hereinafter, “Nakano”) and in further view of JP 2017/134750 A to Kota et al. (hereinafter, “Kota”).
Regarding claim 6, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park-Nakano do not disclose: wherein the control unit performs processing of further displaying the habitual score calculated based on a current activity of the user and the habitual information.
However, Kota discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of further displaying the habitual score calculated based on a current activity of the user and the habitual information (“Then, as shown in FIG. 6, the authentication apparatus 100 displays a graph of the sum of the weights of the elements for each category. The example of FIG. 6 indicates that the user is characterized by “location information system” and “time system” rather than “browsing information system”, “sensor information system”, and “smartphone system”. As a result, the authentication apparatus 100 can display user characteristics by category, so that it is possible to relatively easily understand what category the user characteristics are. For this reason, the authentication apparatus 100 can utilize the information which shows a user's characteristic for marketing or advertisement delivery, for example” [0064] [Examiner notes that calculated weights user for the final authentication determination can be displayed]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Kota in order for the system to be able to efficiently display the weights used for the authentication score.
Regarding claim 12, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park discloses: determining whether authentication at the target succeeds or fails based on the calculated use occasion score per device and the habitual score (“The requesting for the additional authentication may include requesting the client device for the additional authentication of the user based on the current risk score exceeding a first threshold or the total risk score exceeding a second threshold” [0025] [Examiner notes that this text discloses processing that determines an authentication outcomes based on a calculated score. Specifically, the risk analyzer calculates a total risk score based on the current risk score and the risk score history of the user. The system then determines whether additional authentication of the user is required based on the current risk score and the total risk score, including determining whether the total risk score exceeds a threshold. When the total risk score exceeds a threshold, the system requests additional authentication, whereas when the total risk score does not exceed the threshold, authenticated proceed without requiring further verification. This, the system uses the total calculated score to determine whether the authentication attempt is accepted or not])
Park does not disclose: displaying on the map image for each target the determination result
However, Nakano discloses: displaying on the map image for each target the determination result (“FIG. 9 shows an example of information presented to the authentication target user at the time of authentication. As shown in the figure, the map image 2012a1 representing the area around the place where the user has acted, the date and time corresponding to “when” of the action history information, the information indicating the object corresponding to “what” of the action history information, and “ Information 2010X consisting of information representing the behavior corresponding to "What's wrong" is presented” [0041] [Examiner notes that this art shows the functionality of displaying locations/targets and associated information on a map. Combined with per-device success/failure from the third reference, it supports visually indicating which devices succeeded or failed at each target])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the added structure of Nakano in order for the system to be able to efficiently display authentication results for each target.
Park-Nakano does not disclose: wherein the target use history includes information on a target used by the user and information on a device used for payment of the target, a target score and a device score calculated based on the target use history are used for the calculation of the use occasion score, and the control unit performs processing of calculating for each target the use occasion score per device, and on whether authentication per device succeeds or fails.
However, Kota discloses: wherein the target use history includes information on a target used by the user and information on a device used for payment of the target (““User ID” indicates identification information for identifying a user. For example, the “user ID” stores a character string such as a unique alphanumeric character individually assigned to each user. “Characteristic” indicates information indicating the characteristic of the user. For example, “feature” includes items such as “position information”, “browsing information”, “application information”, and “device information”. As an example, the “position information” stores a weight having a place where the user stays as an element. Here, as one aspect of the “weight”, a higher value is stored in a place where the frequency of staying by the user is higher. The “browsing information” stores a weight having a site viewed by the user as an element. Here, as one aspect of the “weight”, a higher value is stored for a site that is frequently viewed by the user. The “application information” stores a weight having an application used by the user as an element. Here, as one aspect of the “weight”, an application having a higher frequency of use is stored with a higher value. The “device information” stores a weight having a device used by the user as an element. Here, as an example of the “weight”, a higher value is stored for a device that is used more frequently by the user” [0032]; “Specifically, the authentication unit 133 of the authentication device 100 authenticates the user based on the weight of the element corrected based on the user situation based on the user action history and the input information. For example, the authentication device 100 first determines the user's situation from various histories such as a user search history, a web page browsing history, and a product purchase history. As an example, when the user makes a trip, the authentication device 100 belongs to any stage, such as a situation in which a travel location is investigated, a situation in which a hotel or air ticket is reserved, a situation in which a necessary item for the trip is purchased, or the like. It is judged from a user's action history whether it is in a situation. After that, the authentication device 100 corrects the weights of the elements forming the model based on the determined user situation. Then, the authentication device 100 authenticates the user based on the corrected element weight and the input information” [0055] [Examiner notes that these texts provide information about where the user performed actions, which is interpreted as the targets used by the user. Examiner also notes that that these texts show how the system tracks which device the user used, showing the device user for payment aspect]),
a target score and a device score calculated based on the target use history are used for the calculation of the use occasion score (“Specifically, the authentication unit 133 of the authentication device 100 authenticates the user based on the weight of the element corrected based on the user situation based on the user action history and the input information. For example, the authentication device 100 first determines the user's situation from various histories such as a user search history, a web page browsing history, and a product purchase history. As an example, when the user makes a trip, the authentication device 100 belongs to any stage, such as a situation in which a travel location is investigated, a situation in which a hotel or air ticket is reserved, a situation in which a necessary item for the trip is purchased, or the like. It is judged from a user's action history whether it is in a situation. After that, the authentication device 100 corrects the weights of the elements forming the model based on the determined user situation. Then, the authentication device 100 authenticates the user based on the corrected element weight and the input information” [0059] [Examiner notes that the weights assigned to elements (per target or per device) are being interpreted as the target score and the device score since the system calculates the reliability of each element based on past usage frequency. These scores feed into the use occasion score (as previously mentioned) which aggregates the historical usage information to estimate authentication success likelihood]), and
the control unit performs processing of calculating for each target the use occasion score per device (“That is, FIG. 4 shows an example in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of staying in “Shibuya” is higher than “Shinagawa”. Further, an example is shown in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of browsing “A site” is higher than “B site”. Further, an example is shown in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of using the “X app” is higher than the “Y app”. Further, an example is shown in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of using the “V phone” is higher than that of the “W personal computer”” [0033] [Examiner notes that this text shows a description of the authentication unit and the system calculating scores per element (target-device pairs) supporting calculation of the use occasion score for each target per device]), and
on whether authentication per device succeeds or fails (“That is, FIG. 4 shows an example in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of staying in “Shibuya” is higher than “Shinagawa”. Further, an example is shown in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of browsing “A site” is higher than “B site”. Further, an example is shown in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of using the “X app” is higher than the “Y app”. Further, an example is shown in which the user identified by the user ID “U1” has a feature that the frequency of using the “V phone” is higher than that of the “W personal computer”” [0033] [Examiner notes that this reference shows that devices are differentiated per target and can have different authentication outcomes (success/failure) based on usage frequency]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Kota in order for the system to be able to efficiently display the weights used for the authentication score.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of JP 2011/059837 A to Nakano et al. (hereinafter, “Nakano”) and in further view of WO 2022/059173 A1 to Hidenori et al. (hereinafter, “Hidenori”).
Regarding claim 7, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park-Nakano do not disclose: wherein the control unit performs processing of explicitly indicating which layer of target layers each target indicated on the map image belongs.
However, Hidenori discloses: wherein the control unit performs processing of explicitly indicating which layer of target layers each target indicated on the map image belongs (“FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of the contents displayed on the display unit 440 by the display information generated by the display control device 200. In the figure, the stores corresponding to the registered biometric authentication payment method of the user U are displayed on the map. In the figure, the store A corresponding to face authentication and the store B corresponding to fingerprint authentication are displayed with a “☆” mark. Since the user U cannot use the iris authentication, the store C corresponding to the iris authentication is not marked with "☆". In addition, although the user U can make a QR code payment, this is because the display is limited to the payment method using biometric authentication. Store D is not marked with a "☆". Further, the display control device 200 can generate display information so as to be able to discriminately display a store corresponding to a payment method using non-contact authentication. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of the display contents. In FIG. 11, among the stores marked with “☆” in FIG. 10, the stores corresponding to the payment method using non-contact authentication are marked with “★” and displayed. Therefore, the store corresponding to the payment method using non-contact authentication and the other stores are displayed in a distinguishable manner by the attached symbol. In this way, by displaying the stores that support the payment method using non-contact authentication and the other stores in a distinguishable manner, the user U can use the non-contact among the stores that support the registered biometric authentication payment method. It is possible to further identify the stores that support authentication. Therefore, the user U can easily grasp the store where the payment can be made without touching the object and can be used as a reference for selecting the store. In the above, the "☆" mark and the "★" mark were used as a method for displaying the stores in a distinguishable manner, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, only stores satisfying the above conditions may be displayed, and other stores may be hidden. Alternatively, any display method may be used as long as the user U can grasp the target store, such as highlighting, changing the color, or blinking the store satisfying the above conditions on the map” [0036-0038] [Examiner notes that this text shows the display control device generating display information so that the stores are displayed on a map, where each store corresponds to a particular authentication or payment capability. The display further distinguishes these stores using visual symbols. For example, stores corresponding to the user's registered biometric authentication payment methods are displayed with a "☆" mark. Also, stores supporting payment methods using non-contact authentication are further indicated with a "★" mark. As a result, stores associated with different authentication categories are displayed in a distinguishable manner on the map. Since the system displays targets on a map image and explicitly indicates their associated category through visual symbols, the display effectively indicates which layer or category each target belongs to]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Hidenori in order for the system to be able to efficiently display and indicate which layers for each target on the corresponding map.
Regarding claim 14, a combination of Park-Nakano discloses the system of claim 4.
Park-Nakano do not disclose: wherein whether authentication at the target succeeds or fails is whether authentication used for performing payment at a shop succeeds or fails.
However, Hidenori discloses: wherein whether authentication at the target succeeds or fails is whether authentication used for performing payment at a shop succeeds or fails (“Subsequently, the generation unit 243 receives the result of biometric authentication from the authentication device 100, and determines whether or not the biometric authentication is successful (S403). When the authentication is successful (Yes in S403), the generation unit 243 generates display information for displaying the store corresponding to the payment method available to the user U based on the store definition information 212 (S404). Then, the biometric information acquisition unit 241 returns to the authentication terminal 400 that the authentication was successful and the generated display information (S405).
If the authentication is not successful in step S403 (No in S403), the authentication control unit 242 returns to the authentication terminal 400 that the biometric authentication has failed (S406)” [0092] [Examiner notes that since the authentication method is used for the payment method at the store, the authentication success/failure corresponds to whether the payment authentication at the shop succeeds or fails]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park-Nakano with the added structure of Hidenori in order for the system to be able to efficiently allow authentication if and only if payment goes through.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0341758 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”) in view of WO 2022/059173 A1 to Hidenori et al. (hereinafter, “Hidenori”).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses the system of claim 1.
Park does not disclose: wherein the target use history includes information related to a shop at which the user has performed payment.
However, Hidenori discloses: wherein the target use history includes information related to a shop at which the user has performed payment (“FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of the contents displayed on the display unit 440 by the display information generated by the display control device 200. In the figure, the stores corresponding to the registered biometric authentication payment method of the user U are displayed on the map. In the figure, the store A corresponding to face authentication and the store B corresponding to fingerprint authentication are displayed with a “☆” mark. Since the user U cannot use the iris authentication, the store C corresponding to the iris authentication is not marked with "☆". In addition, although the user U can make a QR code payment, this is because the display is limited to the payment method using biometric authentication. Store D is not marked with a "☆"” [0036] [Examiner notes that the system maintains information about stores where the user can perform payment using registered authentication methods, which corresponds to maintaining shop-related payment information in the target use history]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the added structure of Hidenori in order for the target history to have up to date store-related information the user has in its activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Omori et al. (WO 2024/252497 A1) teaches techniques for an identity score calculation device (10) comprising: an authentication results collection unit (111) that collects authentication results from an authentication device (20) for normal authentication and high-level authentication; a behavior information collection unit (112) that collects behavior information about a user; a high-level authentication control unit (114) that selects a high-level authentication method on the basis of the behavior information for a user for whom it has been determined that the high-level authentication is to be executed in addition to the normal authentication; a high-level authentication results evaluation unit (115) that extracts a user for whom the result of a past high-level authentication was a failure, executes the high-level authentication, and if the authentication is successful, compares the current and past behavior information, and estimates the identity of the user; and a likelihood calculation unit (117) that calculates the likelihood of said identity by using the authentication results information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU whose telephone number is (703)756-1761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. 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.
/SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408