DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to communications received on 6/10/2026. Claims 4 and 7 were cancelled. No new claims were added. Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-11 are currently pending and presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9 and 10 clarifying the meaning of the claim term “DJ” and references to “user input”, “DJ equipment” and “user authentication” are sufficient to overcome the objections raised in the Non-Final Rejection, issued 3/11/2026. Therefore, the objections from the Non-Final Rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 causing all the sections to be implemented by the processor are sufficient to cause the claim to no longer be interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to cause it to no longer be rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea. Therefore the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “an authentication information generating section configured to, when receiving a request for authentication information and identification information of a user from a terminal device, generate first authentication information representing content of an operation on at least one operator provided for Disc Jockey (DJ) equipment; a communicator configured to send the first authentication information to the terminal device” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to for the following informalities: the claims are directed to different statutory classes than the claim from which they depend (claim 1 is a device claim, claim 10 is a system claim and claim 11 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim). The Examiner recommends making claims 10 and 11 independent claims and explicitly adding in those limitations from claim 1 which would be in those different statutory claimed classes.
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 1-3, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kamin-Lyndgaard (US 2015/0103018) (hereafter “Kamin”).
Regarding claim 1, Kaim teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
An information processing device comprising a processor, the processor comprising:
an authentication information generating section configured to, when receiving a request for authentication information and identification information of a user from a terminal device, generate first authentication information representing content of an operation on at least one operator provided for Disc Jockey (DJ) equipment (paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: when a user of a sensory-interface device interacts with the device to seek access (i.e. receiving request for authentication information and identification information of user from terminal device), sensory-interface device comprises touch-sensitive surface that receives gestures that are the equivalent of a password (i.e. generating first authentication information and identification information of a user) on the touch-sensitive surface with a virtual “job dial” used by a disk jockey (DJ) (i.e.. provided for DJ equipment)) to unlock or enable functions such as music playback on the sensory-interface);
a communicator configured to send the first authentication information to the terminal device (paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: sending the gesture information to the sensory-interface device); and
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 (paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: checking the gesture information received from the user gesture against stored reference gesture information received from previous user gestures on the touch-sensitive surface with the DJ equipment and authenticating the user when they are a match).
Although Kamin does not explicitly disclose that the second authentication was received from the DJ equipment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention that Kamin teaches such functionality because Kamin discloses that the virtual jog dial of a DJ control may be included on the touch-sensitive surface in order to enable the DJ to perform techniques such as beat matching and scratching when playing digitally recorded music (para. [0059]) and that the user performs gestures, which include interacting with the job dial, in order to authenticate user access using the sensory-interface device. Therefore gesture information collected via the user interacting with the jog dial could be stored as a reference on the sensory-interface for authenticating user access to the sensory-interface device in order to increase the security of the system by making authentication tailored to the specific interactions a DJ normally has with the sensory-interface device.
Regarding claim 2, Kamin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kamin 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 the at least one [[an]] operator provided for the DJ equipment. (Kamin, paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: gesture authentication information includes combination of user movements including user interactions with a user jog dial (DJ equipment).
Regarding claim 3, Kamin teaches the limitations of claims 1-2. Kamin 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 on any of a jog dial, a tempo slider, and a cue button provided for the DJ equipment. (Kamin, paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: gesture authentication information includes combination of user movements including user interactions with a user jog dial (DJ equipment).
Regarding claim 4, Kamin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kamin 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. (Kamin, paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: gesture authentication information (i.e. first authentication information) is generated from user movements input onto the sensory device which the user views on the sensory interface (i.e. is presented to the user as they input it)).
Regarding claim 8, Kamin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kamin 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. (Kamin, paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: user/operator is granted access if the gesture authentication is successful (i.e. notifying user of operation status by granting user access to all of the device functions of the DJ equipment)).
Regarding claim 10, Kamin teach the limitations of claim 1. Kamin teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
A system comprising:
the information processing device according to any one of claim 1; the terminal device configured to send the request for the authentication information and the identification information of the user the DJ equipment comprising the at least one operator. (Kamin, paras. [0059], [0062], [0064]: sensory-interface device sends the gesture authentication information to be stored in a database and the jog dial DJ equipment is operated by a user of the sensory-interface device).
Regarding claim 11, Kamin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kamin 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. (Kamin, paras. [0056], [0063]-[0064]: sensory-interface device comprises memory and non-volatile data storage and operates with mobile device).
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kamin-Lyndgaard (US 2015/0103018) (hereafter “Kamin”), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Li (US 2024/0386083).
Regarding claim 5, Kamin teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Kamin 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 (Kamin, paras. [0059], [0062], [0064], [0177]: gesture information authentication may include receiving different types of gestures for authentication and include a time function).
Kamin does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 5 as follows:
within a predetermined time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses the remaining limitations of claim 5 as follows:
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)).
Li is combinable with Kamin because both are from the same field of endeavor of authenticating access to user devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to integrate Li’s method of authenticating within a predetermined time with the system of Kamin in order to increase the security of the system by ensuring that the requester does not have endless amounts of time to try to pass authentication thereby preventing endless amounts of attempts to authenticate.
Regarding claim 6, Kamin teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Kamin does not teach the limitations of claim 6, however Li from the same field of endeavor 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)).
Li is combinable with Kamin because both are from the same field of endeavor of authenticating access to user devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to integrate Li’s method of authenticating within a predetermined time with the system of Kamin in order to increase the security of the system by ensuring that the requester does not have endless amounts of time to try to pass authentication thereby preventing endless amounts of attempts to authenticate.
Regarding claim 9, Kamin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kamin does not teach the limitations of claim 9, however in the same field of endeavor 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)).
Li is combinable with Kamin because both are from the same field of endeavor of authenticating access to user devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to integrate Li’s method of authenticating within a predetermined time with the system of Kamin in order to increase the security of the system by ensuring that the requester does not have endless amounts of time to try to pass authentication thereby preventing endless amounts of attempts to authenticate.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON LYNCH whose telephone number is ((571) 272-4583.
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.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights