DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/27/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 06/13/2022 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/27/2024 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recite “….. temporarily disable user authentication based on the first authentication information or to perform switching to another method of user authentication, when the user authentication fails …”, is not clear if user authentication, is the same as “the user authentication” mentioned in claim 1 or it is a different user authentication.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 recite “….. and DJ equipment configured to receive a user operation, wherein the determining section is configured to check the first authentication information based on the user input to the terminal device against the second authentication information received from the DJ equipment.”, is not clear if DJ equipment, is the same as “the DJ equipment” mentioned in claim 1 or it is a different DJ equipment.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 recite “…..a terminal device configured to receive a user input; and DJ equipment configured to receive a user operation, wherein the determining section is configured to check the first authentication information based on the user input to the terminal device”, is not clear if user input, is the same as “the user input” mentioned in claim 1 or it is a different user input.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10 recite “DJ equipment”, which is an undefined acronyms. The standard practice is to include the fully spelled out name or phrase on first usage, followed immediately by the acronym in parentheses (i.e., “Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) …”), thereafter using just the acronym.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: each limitation using the language “section” (e.g., “determining section”, “generating section”, and “registering section”) in claims 1-11. The corresponding structure can be found in Para. [0009], Referring to FIG. 1, “the server 10 includes a controller 11, a storage 12, and a communicator 13. The controller 11, which is implemented in the server 10 in a form of, for instance, a communication interface, a processor (e.g. a central processing unit (CPU)), and a memory providing a working area, controls the operation of each component of the server 10. The controller 11 includes a determining section 111 and an authentication information generating section 112, which are implemented by the processor that works in accordance with a program stored in the memory or received through the communication interface”. Paras. [0046]-[0048], “in a known user authentication technique using an external memory
device, authentication key information is written in advance in the external memory device (e.g. a USB memory), and the DJ equipment sends the key information to a server for authentication when the DJ equipment is connected to the external memory device. In contrast, the server 10 according to the exemplary embodiment does not require such an advance preparation. The user authentication is thus prevented from being impossible, which may otherwise occur if a user loses or forgets to bring the external memory device”. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-11, the independent claim 1 is directed, in part, to a method, for checking first authentication information against second authentication information, and performing user authentication based on matching result. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-11 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes checking first authentication information against second authentication information, and performing user authentication based on matching result.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to checking first authentication information against second authentication information, and performing user authentication based on matching result which is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers checking information and performing authentication which is an abstract idea, and can be performed in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers checking information and performing authentication, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional element: “a processing device”. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of checking information and performing authentication) such that this element amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The “An information processing device comprising a determining section configured to check first authentication information based on a user input against second authentication information received from DJ equipment and including operation information for the DJ equipment, and to perform user authentication based on a matching result”, does not rise a practical application, and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not improve any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing device is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li (US 2024/0386083) in view of Mashita (WO 2013140440).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
An information processing device comprising a determining section configured to check first authentication information based on a user input against second authentication information received from DJ equipment and including operation information for the DJ equipment, and to perform user authentication based on a matching result. (Li, Paras. [0032]-[0041], [0064]-[0066], [0073]-[0074], [0087], [0089]-[0096], [0100]-[0111], [0116]-[0120], vehicle 100 includes processor 110 and memory 120 (i.e., an information processing device). Processor 110 performs the authentication determination (i.e., a determining section). vehicle key authentication, password authentication, PIN code authentication, connected device authentication, and biological feature authentication are used as authentication information (i.e., authentication information based on a user input). Driving component 150 includes steering wheel, brake, accelerator, gear shifter, and sensor module 160 collects driving behavior data related to steering wheel, brake, accelerator, clutch. Vehicle collects driving behavior data including posture, contact area, timing, speed, pressure, rotation, angle, etc. (continuous/periodic data collection). The driving behavior data is generated from steering wheel, brake, accelerator, clutch, (i.e., including operation information) and other driving components of the vehicle (user-operated equipment/device). Feature extraction performed to obtain driving feature from driving behavior data, which is used for authentication. Memory stores driving feature template (i.e., second authentication information). At S104: The vehicle registers the driving feature obtained through the feature extraction for a first user, and uses identity template for authentication. Authentication includes obtaining authentication factor, comparing it with stored identity template (i.e., check first authentication … against second authentication). If authentication succeed, the user is authorized, and the vehicle identifies the user as authorized (i.e., perform authentication based on matching result)).
Li teaches authenticating a user of a user-operated device such as a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose:
DJ equipment,
However, Mashita in the Same field of endeavor discloses:
DJ equipment, (Mashita, Pg. 2, 2. Description of the related Art: DJ device, DJ equipment, DJ player. Pg. 4, “The playback control device of the present invention is a playback control device that performs playback control based on the operation of a rotary operator equipped with a contact-type or press-type sensor, and is equipped with a first operation determination).
Mashita is combinable with Li, because both are from the same field of processing user operation inputs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use a DJ equipment, as taught by Mashita with Li’s method in order to authenticate a DJ operator/user based on device operation behavior to improve security.
Regarding claim 2, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first authentication information includes a combination of operations on an operator provided (Li, Paras. [0101]-[0105], the driving behavior data includes a combination of multiple operation such as steering posture (a posture of holding a steering wheel by a hand), brake timing, gear shifting manner, a speed, pressure, a depth, and a timestamp, etc.).
for the DJ equipment. (Mashita, Pg. 2, 2. Description of the related Art: DJ device, DJ equipment, DJ player. Pg. 4, “The playback control device of the present invention is a playback control device that performs playback control based on the operation of a rotary operator equipped with a contact-type or press-type sensor, and is equipped with a first operation determination).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claims 1-2. Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the first authentication information includes at least one operation (Li, Paras. [0073]-[0074], Li discloses specific manual control/behavior such as steering wheel, brake, accelerator, gear shifter, etc.). on any of a jog dial, a tempo slider, and a cue button provided for the DJ equipment. (Mashita, Pgs. 3-5, operations such as jog dial, cue playback, scratch operation determination (i.e., at least one operation of … )).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an authentication information generating section configured to generate the first authentication information based on the user input and to present the first authentication information to a user. (Li, Paras. [0066]-[0071], [0100]-[0111], [0116]-[0127], Li discloses continuous collection of behavior data, feature extraction to obtain driving features, and registration of features at step S104. Vehicle outputs prompt information on a display or using a speaker).
Regarding claim 5, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Li teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the authentication information generating section is configured to generate mutually different types of the first authentication information within a predetermined time. (Li, Paras. [0206]-[0209], [0217]-[0218], the vehicle obtains driving feature data, and performs identity authentication. Vehicle generates authentication results, and performs authentication in multiple manners (i.e., authentication information generating section). Authentication includes driving feature authentication, biological feature authentication, PIN code authentication, connected device authentication, and key authentication (i.e., generate mutually different types). Authentication result based on at least one matching result within a first preset period of time, and complete identity authentication within a second preset period of time (i.e., within a predetermined time)).
Regarding claim 6, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Li teaches the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the determining section is configured to invalidate user authentication based on the first authentication information when a predetermined time has elapsed since the first authentication information is generated by the authentication information generating section. (Li, Paras. [0207]-[0217], [0250]-[0257], the vehicle obtains the authentication result based on at least one matching result within a first preset period of time (i.e., a predetermined time). At step S705, the vehicle determines based on the fifth authentication result, whether the fourth authentication result is valid. Therefore, the vehicle’s control logic determines the validity of authentication corresponding to the determining section. “when the fifth authentication result indicates that the authentication succeeds, validity of the previous authentication result in the first manner may be continued”, confirms the validity of the generated authentication result. “when the fifth authentication result indicates that the authentication fails, the vehicle may no longer provide the permission to use the vehicle, for example, disable a function of the vehicle, and the first user cannot use the vehicle normally” (i.e., invalidate user authentication)).
Regarding claim 7, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an authentication information registering section configured to register the first authentication information based on the user input. (Li, Paras. [0116]-[0117], Li discloses at step S104: The vehicle registers the driving feature obtained through the feature extraction for a first user and stores the driving feature obtained through the feature extraction as a driving feature template of the first user).
Regarding claim 8, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a notifier configured to notify a user of an operation status for the DJ equipment based on the operation information. (Li, Paras. [0112]-[0114], [0119]-[0120], at step S103, the vehicle outputs first prompt information on a display or using a speaker. Prompt triggers login or registration).
Regarding claim 9, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the determining section is configured to temporarily disable user authentication based on the first authentication information or to perform switching to another method of user authentication, when the user authentication fails a predetermined number of times or more. (Li, Paras. [0207]-[0218], [0250]-[0261], the vehicle determines based on the fifth authentication result, whether the fourth authentication result is valid (i.e., determining section). “when the fifth authentication result indicates that the authentication succeeds, validity of the previous authentication result in the first manner may be continued”, confirms the validity of the generated authentication result. “when the fifth authentication result indicates that the authentication fails, the vehicle may no longer provide the permission to use the vehicle, for example, disable a function of the vehicle, and the first user cannot use the vehicle normally” (i.e., disable user authentication or … ). “perform the identity authentication on the current user in the third manner. For the third manner, refer to the description of the third manner in S503 in FIG. 6”, (i.e., … switch to another method), “the vehicle may perform S702 to S705 for a plurality of times. Only when fifth authentication results obtained for the plurality of times all indicate that the authentication succeeds, the fourth authentication result remains that the authentication succeeds. When the obtained fifth authentication result indicates that the authentication fails, the fourth authentication result indicates that the authentication fails”, (i.e., fails a number of time)).
Regarding claim 10, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
A system comprising: the information processing device according to any one of claims 1 to 9; a terminal device configured to receive a user input; and DJ equipment configured to receive a user operation, wherein the determining section is configured to check the first authentication information based on the user input to the terminal device against the second authentication information received from the DJ equipment. (Li, Paras. [0032]-[0041], [0064]-[0066], [0073]-[0074], [0087], [0089]-[0096], [0100]-[0111], [0116]-[0120], vehicle 100 includes processor 110 and memory 120 (i.e., an information processing device). Processor 110 performs the authentication instruction stored in memory (i.e., a determining section). The user enters the password on a vehicle-mounted computer or another part of the vehicle like the vehicle door or a device connected to the vehicle in a near field communication manner like Bluetooth/smart phone (i.e., a terminal device … receive a user input). Driving component 150 includes steering wheel, brake, accelerator, gear shifter, and sensor module 160 collects driving behavior data related to steering wheel, brake, accelerator, clutch. Vehicle collects driving behavior data including posture, contact area, timing, speed, pressure, rotation, angle, etc. (continuous/periodic data collection). The driving behavior data is generated from steering wheel, brake, accelerator, clutch, (i.e., equipment receive user operation) and other driving components of the vehicle (user-operated equipment/device). First authentication information (user input) are checked against stored authentication information (i.e., second authentication information), and determines authorization of the user based on the comparison result (the template comparison)).
Mashita in the Same field of endeavor discloses:
DJ equipment, (Mashita, Pg. 2, 2. Description of the related Art: DJ device, DJ equipment, DJ player. Pg. 4, “The playback control device of the present invention is a playback control device that performs playback control based on the operation of a rotary operator equipped with a contact-type or press-type sensor, and is equipped with a first operation determination).
Mashita is combinable with Li, because both are from the same field of processing user operation inputs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use a DJ equipment, as taught by Mashita with Li’s method in order to authenticate a DJ operator/user based on device operation behavior to improve security.
Regarding claim 11, Li and Mashita teach the limitations of claim 1. Li teaches the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
A program causing a computer to function as the information processing device according to any one of claims 1 to 9. (Li, Paras. [0064]-[0066], [0087], [0089]-[0092], the processor is configured to read computer program code stored in the memory 120 and performs procedures shown in Figs. 1, 8, and 10).
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Yoda (US 2017/0223000) discloses a behavioral- based authentication method based on the pattern of the operation timing used for the login authentication.
Terres (US 8,539,550) discloses a multi-pattern authentication gestures method which uses a gesture library containing stored gesture templates to find a match with the acquired multi-pattern authentication gesture.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-11 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438